3%S 


ELIMINARY  REPORT 


Chicago  Railway  Terminal 


c 


ommission 


Submitted  to 

City  Council  Committee 

on 

Railway  Terminals 


MARCH  29.  1915 


I 


KBL-lXJtaH 


PRELIMINARY  REPORT 


Chicago  Railway  Terminal 
Commission 


i!N1VER  iLLlNOIb 


Submitted  to   CITY    COUNCIL 
COMMITTEE  ON  RAIL- 
WAY TERMINALS 


MARCH  29,  1915 


1 


t- 
< 


^^^-.- 


VN^^ 


>x\N 


.c\ 


■^H 


^  ^  'S 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Page 

Letter    of    Transmittal V 

Creation  of  Commission 1 

History    2 

Fundamental   Principles    8 

Effect   of   Competitive   Theory 10 

Co-operative    Terminals    12 

Passenger   Service    15 

Through   Eouting    15 

Freight    Service    16 

Less  than  Carload   (L.  C.  L.)   Freight 17 

Universal  Freight  Stations    18 

Two  Level  Plan    18 

Intensive  Development   19 

Electrification    20 

Chicago   Terminal   Situation 21 

Eailroads  in  the  City  Plan 22 

Present   Method   of  Handling  Merchandise   Freight 25 

Present   Superficial   Use   of   Terminal   Properties 26 

Chicago    Eiver   Straightening 27 

Summary   of   General   Eecommendations 28 

Present  Terminal  Facilities.                              Exhibit       1 33 

Eearrangement    of    Passenger    Terminals.          "           II 40 

Eearrangement   of  Freight  Terminals.                ' '          III 47 

Eiver  Straightening.                                                 "           IV 58 

European   Trip.      Appendix  "  A  " 61 

Supplement  to         "          "A" '. 75 

Statistics.                        "         "B" 96 

Chicago   Statistics    96 

General    Eailroad    Statistics 125 

ILLUSTEATIOXS. 

Page 

Frontispiece    

Chicago — Eailroad  Eoute   and  Terminal  Map 37 

Central   Freight    House    District 38 

Eailroad    Occupancy    39 

Three   Terminal    Station   Plan 43 

Three  Terminal   Station  Plan — Alternative 44 

Four   Terminal   Station   Plan 46 

Eearrangement    of   Freight    Terminals — Scheme    No.    1 49 

^^                        Eearrangement    of   Freight    Terminals — Scheme   No.    2 51 

H                       Eearrangement    of   Freight    Terminals — Scheme    No.    3 53 

Eearrangement    of    Freight    Terminals — Scheme    No.   4 55 

t."                        Eearrangement    of   Freight   Terminals — Scheme    No.    5 57 

^                        Eiver   Straightening    60 

^     Map   of  Toronto 89 

y.     Map   of  Montreal 90 

*^    Map   of  Boston 91 

;^     Map   of   New  York 92 

iii 


313617 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS— Continupa. 

Page 

Map    of    Loiiilon 93 

Map   uf    Paris 94 

Map    of    Hi'rliii .  .  95 


LIST   OF   TABLES. 
TnhW' 
No.  Page 

1.  r!iss,ii;;ii     Iriiiiinals   PriiH'ipnl    .\niorican    Titios 96 

2.  ^hi<•a^;o  I'nssiMipor  Tormiiials — Trains     97 

.1.     Chicago  Passongor  Terminals — Passengers     99 

4.  Chicago  rnssongor  Terminals — ^^ail     100 

5.  Chicago  Tassenger  Terminals — Baggage      101 

6.  Chicago  BasstMiger  Terminals — Express     102 

7.  Summary    by    Stations 103 

8.  House   Freight    ILnndled   Insiile   City   Limits 104 

9.  House  Freight  Hamlled  Inside  Central  Area 104 

10.  House  Freight   llamlleii  by  Districts — Central   Area lO.l 

11.  T.-.uii   Freight  Handled  Inside  City  Limits 106 

12.  Team  Freight  Handled  Inside  Central  Area 107 

13.  Team    Freight   Handled  by  Districts — Central  Area 107 

14.  Outbouml  Transfer  Freight  Inside  City  Limits 109 

15.  Inbound  Transfer  Freight  Inside  City  Limits 109 

16.  Railroad   Freight   Facilities — Central   Area 110 

17.  House    and    Team   Track    Facilities   between    State   Street    and    Chicago 
Riv.-r    112 


IV 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 

City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Terminals: 
Gentlemen  : 

The  Railway  Terminal  Commission  transmits  herewith  a  pre- 
liminary report  on  the  Chicago  railway  terminal  situation. 

Since  its  formation,  May  25,  1914,  your  Commission — collec- 
tively, separately  and  through  its  staff — has  been  engaged  in  the  col- 
lection of  data  and  in  a  study  of  the  terminal  situation. 

In  addition  to  the  Chicago  situation,  the  Commission — as  set 
forth  more  specifically  in  its  report — has  made  personal  examination 
on  the  ground  of  the  terminals  of  Toronto,  Montreal,  Boston,  New 
York,  Liverpool,  Manchester,  London,  Paris,  Brussels  and  Antwerp. 

Your  Commission  considered,  analyzed  and  reported  to  your 
Committee  on  the  application  for  an  ordinance  filed  by  the  Chicago  & 
Western  Indiana  Railroad  Company,  providing  for  the  construction 
of  a  temporary  annex  to  its  Dearborn  Street  Passenger  Station,  in 
order  to  provide  for  the  care  of  its  immigrant  and  suburban  passenger 
business.  The  Commission'  secured  from  the  Chicago  &  Western 
Indiana  Railroad  Company  consent  to  a  provision  in  the  ordinance — 
substantially  similar  to  that  contained  in  the  Union  Station  ordinance 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  and  its  associates — for  the  straightening 
of  the  Chicago  River.  This  ordinance  is  still  pending  before  the  City 
Council. 

Your  Commission  also  investigated  and  reported  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Local  Industries  upon  an  application  by  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio 
Chicago  Terminal  Railroad  Company  authorizing  certain  additional 
main  tracks,  a  new  coach  yard  and  other  facilities.  This  ordinance 
required  the  consideration  of  the  Commission  and  its  staff  during  a 
period  of  nearly  two  months  and  involved  a  personal  inspection  of 
the  ground  and  repeated  conferences  with  the  officials  of  the  Balti- 
more &  Ohio  Chicago  Terminal  Railroad  Company,  and  Mr.  Daniel 
Willard,  Chairman  of  the  Board,  and  also  President  of  the  Baltimore 
&  Ohio  Railroad  Company.  A  report  was  finally  made  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Local  Industries  on  January  26,  1915,  and  an  ordinance 
embodying  the  suggestions  of  the  Commission  was  recommended  to 
the  City  Council  by  the  Committee  on  Local  Industries,  and  passed 


by  the  City  Council  on  February  19,  1915.  This  ordinance — by  pro- 
viding the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Chicago  Terminal  Railroad  Company 
with  a  new  coach  yard  and  the  facilities  connected  therewith — enabled 
it  to  vacate  its  present  holdings,  thereby  removing  practically  the  last 
obstacle  to  the  Union  Station  project.  A  provision  consenting  to  the 
straightening  of  the  Chicago  River — substantially  similar  to  that 
contained  in  the  Union  Station  ordinance — was  also  secured  from  the 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Chicago  Terminal  Railroad  Company. 

Interviews  with  the  officials  of  other  railroads  abutting  on  the 
Chicago  River  lead  the  Commission  to  believe  that  favorable  con- 
v^ideration  by  these  railroads  can  be  secured  for  the  river  straighten- 
ing project  and  that  its  accomplishment  can  be  brought  about  more 
speedily  than  has  been  generally  supposed. 

Your  Commission  has  also  acted  in  an  advisory  capacity  to  the 
Chicago  Municipal  Markets  Commission  and  has  given  considerable 
time  to  the  investigation  and  study  of  the  transportation  and  terminal 
aspect  of  this  project — which  it  still  has  under  consideration. 

It  has  been  conferred  with  and  has  attended  various  Committee 
meetings  and  conferences  in  connection  with  the  Lake  Front  project. 

It  has  investigated  the  general  freight  situation  in  Chicago,  and 
in  the  report  appended  hereto  will  be  found  the  preliminary  results 
of  these  studies. 

It  has  continued  the  investigation  of  the  passenger  terminal  situ- 
ation as  a  whole,  and  the  preliminary  results  of  this  investigation 
Lcre  outlined  in  the  attached  report. 

Your  Commission  has  also  had  referred  to  it  five  ordinances  and 
iourteen  resolutions,  orders  and  communications  in  regard  to  elec- 
trification and  smoke  abatement.  This  subject  is  so  important  that 
your  Commission  has  felt  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  formulate  its 
views  thereon  until  after  the  formal  report  of  the  Chicago  Associa- 
tion of  Commerce  Committee  of  Investigation  on  Smoke  Abatement 
and  Electrification  of  Railway  Terminals  has  been  made  pubhc,  and 
the  Commission  can  have  the  benefit  of  the  facts  and  recommenda- 
tions therein  set  forth.  It  is  very  important  that  the  Commission 
should  have  this  report  before  arriving  at  final  definite  conclusions 
in  regard  to  important  details  of  the  general  terminal  situation,  as  it 
is  expected  that  this  report — the  result  of  the  study  of  a  special  Com- 
mission which  has  spent  four  years  and  several  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  the  accumulation  of  facts  and  in  the  investigation  of  this 
project — will  contain  data  and  information  of  the  greatest  value.  It 
is  generally  understood  that  the  question  of  the  electrification  of  the 


VI 


roads  and  the  rearrangement  and  unification  of  trackage  facilities 
are  so  interlaced  that  they  should  be  carefully  considered  in  con- 
junction with  each  other. 

Your  Commission  finds  the  terminal  situation  so  complex  and  so 
many  interests  involved  that  the  attached  report  is  simply  submitted 
as  a  preliminary  progress  report  in  order  that  your  Committee  and 
the  City  Council  may  be  intelligently  advised  as  to  the  progress 
made  to  date. 

It  is  clearly  apparent  that  important  applications  to  the  City 
Council  will  be  made  in  the  near  future  for  changes  in  the  terminals 
of  various  railroads,  and  these  applications  will  afiford  valuable  op- 
portunities for  improving  our  terminal  situation  as  a  whole. 

Among  these  will  be : 

First — The  application  for  such  privileges  as  the  Illinois  Central 
Railroad  Company  may  need  in  order  to  provide  a  new  passenger 
terminal  on  the  Lake  Front  and  access  thereto  by  other  railroad 
lines  which  may  be  induced  to  use  this  terminal,  in  connection  with 
which  it  will  be  of  vital  importance  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the 
City,  especially  with  respect  to  access  to  the  proposed  harbor  im- 
provements for  rail  and  vehicular  traffic. 

Second — The  application  for  radical  changes  in  freight  and  pas- 
senger terminals  of  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  or  Chicago  Belt 
group  of  roads,  which  changes  these  roads  have  been  studying  and 
discussing  for  some  time. 

Third^The  application  for  changes  in  both  the  passenger  and 
freight  terminals  of  the  Lake  Shore  and  Rock  Island  roads.  These 
changes  seem  to  be  inevitable  and  are  believed  to  be  under  contem- 
plation for  the  not  distant  future.  Out  of  these  changes  and  the 
changes  under  consideration  by  the  Western  Indiana  group  of  rail- 
roads, should  evolve  an  intensive  co-operative  freight  development  in 
the  territory  north  of  Sixteenth  Street,  between  Clark  Street  and  the 
Chicago  River  straightened.  It  may  possibly  involve  a  new  co- 
operative passenger  terminal  for  some  of  the  above  mentioned  and 
other  railroads — such  as  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio — somewhere  in  the 
territory  between  State  Street  and  the  Chicago  River. 

Fourth — Applications  for  the  location  and  the  development  of 
one  or  more  produce  terminals.  This  matter  is  now  under  serious 
consideration,  and  several  localities  have  been  suggested,  the  selec- 
tion of  which  is  a  matter  of  grave  importance  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
the  produce  merchants  and  all  the  various  railroads. 

The  study  of  the  general  railroad  situation  in  Chicago  has  led 
your  Commission  to  believe  that  any  adequate  terminal  policy  or  plan 


vu 


should  include  the  treatment  of  the  railroad  situation  embraced  in 
the  entire  Chicago  terminal  area  in  its  social,  industrial,  commercial 
and  transportation  interests. 

Your  Commission  hopes  the  Committee  will  appreciate  the  diffi- 
culties that  surround  the  solution  of  the  railway  terminal  problem 
and  again  calls  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  attached  is  neces- 
sarily but  a  preliminary  report,  showing  progress  to  date. 

Respectfully  submitted, 


Chairman 


vni 


PRELIMINARY    REPORT 

OF  THE 

CHICAGO  RAILW^AY  TERMINAL 
COMMISSION 


PRELIMINARY  REPORT 

OF  THE 

CHICAGO  RAILWAY  TERMINAL 
COMMISSION 

The  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commission  was  created  by  a 
resolution  which  was  adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  City  Council  held 
May  25,  1914,  said  resolution  being  as  follows : 

Whereas^  The  City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Ter- 
minals has  been  engaged  for  a  year  past  in  the  consideration  of 
the  location  of  freight  and  passenger  terminals  for  the  Penn- 
sylvania Railroad  Company  and  other  railways;  and 

Whereas,  In  the  consideration  of  the  problems  presented 
the  committee  has  received  timely  and  efficient  assistance  from 
the  Citizens'  Terminal  Plan  Committee  and  the  Chicago  Plan 
Commission  of  the  City  of  Chicago  in  its  labors ;  and 

Whereas,  Other  railway  terminal  questions  will  arise  in 
the  near  future  requiring  a  broad  and  comprehensive  study  and 
investigation  of  the  railway  terminal  situation  and  a  study  of 
the  questions  involved  in  locating  terminals  from  a  technical 
standpoint  to  the  end  that  future  railway  terminals  may  be 
located  with  regard  to  the  best  interests  of  the  citizens  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  the  railways  and  the  traveling  public;  now, 
therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  by  the  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
That  there  be  and  hereby  is  constituted  a  railway  terminal 
commission  to  consist  of  the  following  seven  members : 

Walter  L.  Fisher,  Bion  J.  Arnold  (upon  recommendation 
of  the  Citizens'  Terminal  Plan  Committee  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago), E.  H.  Bennett  (upon  recommendation  of  the  Chicago 
Plan  Commission  of  the  City  of  Chicago),  whose  compensation 
is  not  to  be  paid  by  the  City  of  Chicago;  the  Commissioner  of 
Public  Works,  the  Corporation  Counsel  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Railway  Terminals,  and 
John  F.  Wallace,  the  compensation  of  said  Wallace  to  be  paid 
by  the  City  of  Chicago.  Said  John  F.  Wallace  is  hereby  ap- 
pointed and  shall  act  as  Chairman  of  said  Railway  Terminals 
Commission,  and  in  case  of  his  death,  resignation,  or  inability 
to  act,  his  successor  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Committee  on 
Railway  Terminals. 


„-t»t,'- 


The  term  of  office  of  said  commissioners  shall  expire  the 
first  day  of  April,  1915. 

The  duties  of  said  Commission  shall  be  to  make  a  compre- 
hensive, adequate  and  expert  study  of  the  passenger  and  freight 
railway  terminal  situation  and  problems,  present  and  future,  in 
the  City  of  Chicago,  and  to  advise  the  City  Council  or  its  com- 
mittees upon  any  matters  connected  with  or  relative  to  railway 
terminals  and  to  render  reports  to  the  City  Council  from  time 
to  time  of  the  results  of  its  investigations,  provided,  however, 
that  said  Commission  shall  make  a  full  report  of  its  investiga- 
tions, if  possible,  not  later  than  January  1,  1915. 

In  case  of  a  vacancy  occurring  in  said  Commission  by  reason 
of  death,  resignation,  removal  from  the  city  or  any  other  cause, 
the  vacancy  so  caused  may  be  filled  in  the  manner  prescribed 
for  the  original  appointments. 

HISTORY. 

The  Columbian  Exposition,  held  in  Chicago  in  1893,  did  much  to 
awaken  the  citizens  of  Chicago  to  a  civic  pride,  and  out  of  the  spirit 
engendered  at  this  time  there  was  produced  what  is  known  as  the 
''Chicago  Plan.'' 

In  1908,  the  City  of  Chicago  officially  accepted  from  the  Com- 
mercial Club  of  Chicago  a  report  on  the  Plan  of  Chicago,  prepared 
under  the  direction  of  the  late  Daniel  H.  Burnham.  With  the 
authority  of  the  City,  the  Mayor  appointed  a  Plan  Commission  and 
transmitted  to  it  the  report  of  the  Commercial  Club,  for  study  and  de- 
velopment. This  was  the  first  organized  efifort  for  creating  a  gen- 
eral plan  for  the  future  development  of  the  City  and  has  formed  the 
basis  of  the  work  of  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission,  looking  towards 
the  execution  of  a  comprehensive  plan  for  a  harmonious  and  sys- 
tematic development  of  the  City. 

The  necessity  for  improvement  and  reorganization  of  the  freight 
terminals  of  Chicago  is  pointed  out  in  the  report  and  the  strongest 
kind  of  recognition  given  to  the  economic  waste  that  is  going  on  in 
Chicago  by  reason  of  the  lack  of  arrangement  and  co-ordination  of 
the  railroad  facilities.  In  this  connection,  recommendation  was  made 
for  a  common  freight  handling  center  properly  related  to  all  the  rail- 
roads in  the  downtown  district  and  to  the  docks. 

It  w^as  proposed-  to  group  the  passenger  stations  in  two  general 
locations  to  the  west  and  to  the  south  of  the  center  of  the  city  and  to 
connect  them — not  only  with  each  other — but  with  the  downtown 
and  outlying  areas  by  means  of  properly  co-ordinated  local  transpor- 
tation facilities  and  an  adequate  street  system.  The  bearing  of  these 
important  problems  on  the  economic  life  of  the  City  was  carefully 

2 


pointed  out.  The  statement  was  made  that  the  prosperity  of  the 
City  in  its  relation  to  other  cities  in  the  country  was  dependent  on 
the  proper  handling  of  these  problems. 

The  members  of  the  Plan  Commission  early  saw  that  a  solution 
of  the  terminal  situation  was  largely  essential  to  the  development 
of  their  plan,  and  the  publicity  incident  to  this  work  induced  other 
architects  and  engineers  to  give  study  to  the  subject  and  to  evolve 
plans  for  terminal  development. 

The  thought  and  agitation  which  had  been  carried  on  for  several 
years  along  these  lines  culminated  when — early  in  1913 — the  Union 
Station  Company,  which  furnishes  station  facilities  for  a  group  of 
railroads  on  the  west  side  of  the  Chicago  River  at  Adams  Street, 
made  application  to  the  City  for  an  ordinance  providing  for  a  new 
terminal  station. 

To  meet  the  situation,  the  City  Council  in  its  organization — 
after  the  election  of  May,  1913 — created  a  standing  Committee  of  the 
City  Council,  known  as  the  City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Ter- 
minals. This  Committee  took  up  for  discussion  the  ordinance  sub- 
mitted by  the  Union  Station  Company.  In  order  to  encourage  the 
fullest  possible  consideration — not  only  of  the  Union  Station  ordi- 
nance, but  of  the  general  railway  terminal  problem  in  Chicago — 
this  Committee  invited  all  those  interested  to  appear  before  it  and 
present  their  views  on  the  subject.  As  a  result  of  this  pro- 
gram, meetings  were  held  several  times  a  week  during  May  and 
June,  1913,  and  a  number  of  persons  who  had  worked  out  schemes 
for  the  solution  of  the  terminal  problem  appeared  before  this  Com- 
mittee and  were  given  every  opportunity  to  present  the  merits  of 
their  respective  plans. 

The  officers  of  the  Plan  Commission  submitted  terminal  plans 
based  on  study  and  analysis  of  the  situation  in  the  business  district 
and  congestion  on  the  streets.  These  plans  made  many  suggestions 
for  the  improvement  of  the  street  system  in  the  central  terminal  dis- 
trict along  the  lines  of  the  Chicago  Plan.  The  original  plans  of  Fred- 
eric A.  Delano  for  the  establishment  of  terminals  at  Twelfth  Street, 
and  plans  prepared  by  Jarvis  Hunt,  Architect,  Pond  &  Pond,  Archi- 
tects, and  Guenzel  c^-  Drummond,  Architects,  were  also  submitted. 

All  of  these  j^laiis  possessed  ideas  of  merit  and  the  public  should 
appreciate  the  time,  labor  and  expense  so  generously  contributed 
towards  a  solution  of  the  terminal  problem. 

The  presentation  of  these  plans,  together  with  the  discussions 
relating  thereto,  extended  over  a  period  of  several  weeks  and  re- 
sulted  in   a  typewritten   record   of   over   1,500  pages.     While  these 

3 


hearings  were  of  great  value  to  the  community,  it  was  the  general 
impression  that  an  intelligent  consideration  of  the  subject  by  the 
City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Terminals  would  be  materially 
assisted  by  having  the  great  amount  of  information  thus  produced 
reviewed  by  an  expert  engineer  or  engineers. 

The  City  Club  of  Chicago — through  its  President,  Alfred  L. 
Baker — made  a  suggestion  that  the  Committee  create  a  commission 
of  experts  to  report  on  the  subject  of  railway  terminals. 

Consideration  was  given  to  this  suggestion  by  the  Committee, 
but  it  finally  reached  the  decision  to  engage  John  F.  Wallace  to  make 
a  report  on  the  railway  terminals  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  on  the 
effect  the  pending  ordinance  would  have  on  the  railway  terminal 
situation. 

The  Citizens'  Terminal  Plan  Committee — representing  disinter- 
ested citizens  organized  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  broad  investi- 
gation and  study  of  railway  terminals  in  Chicago — engaged  Bion  J. 
Arnold  to  make  a  comprehensive  study  and  report  on  the  general 
terminal  situation  and  to  review  the  plans  submitted  by  the  Com- 
mittee as  well  as  the  report  of  Mr.  Wallace.  Later  it  also  retained 
Walter  L.  Fisher  to  represent  it  before  the  Council  Committee. 

After  receiving  these  reports,  the  Committee  proceeded  to  a  con- 
sideration and  discussion  of  the  problems  involved.  In  addition  to 
the  members  of  the  Committee  and  the  representatives  of  the  rail- 
roads interested,  these  conferences  were  participated  in  by  John  F. 
Wallace,  Engineering  Advisor  of  the  City;  Bion  J.  Arnold  and  Walter 
Fisher,  representing  the  Citizens'  Terminal  Plan  Committee ;  Charles 
H.  Wacker  and  his  associates,  Walter  L.  Moody,  Frank  I.  Bennett, 
Edward  H.  Bennett  and  Paul  Lazenby,  of  me  Plan  Commission  of 
Chicago ;  John  W.  Beckwith,  Assistant  Corporation  Counsel  (after- 
wards Corporation  Counsel)  ;  Lawrence  E.  McGann,  Commissioner 
of  Public  Works,  and  many  citizens  interested  in  a  solution  of  the 
terminal  situation. 

As  a  result  of  these  conferences  and  hearings,  what  is  known  as 
the  Union  Station  Ordinance  and  Pennsylvania  Freight  Ordinance 
were  passed  by  the  City  Council  on  March  23,  1914,  and  afterwards 
accepted  by  the  railroads  interested. 

These  ordinances — while  securing  to  the  railroads  a  location  for 
their  Union  Station  and  freight  facilities  of  undoubted  value — also 
secured  to  the  City  substantial  advantages  and  street  improvements, 
many  of  them  elements  of  the  Chicago  Plan,  which  cannot  be  meas- 
ured wholly  by  a  commercial  standard.  Among  these  were  the  fol- 
lowing: 

4 


The  widening  of  viaducts  betweeen  Canal  Street  and  the  River 
to  the  full  width  of  the  street  at  uniform  grades ; 

The  opening  up  of  Monroe  Street  between  Canal  Street  and 
the  River; 

The  widening  of  Canal  Street  and  the  establishment  of  a  more 
uniform  grade  thereon; 

Provision  for  a  double-decked  connection  between  Canal  Street 
and  the  North  Side; 

Provision  for  the  ultimate  opening  of  Congress  Street  to  the 
width  contemplated  in  the  Chicago  Plan ; 

Agreement   to   co-operate   in   the   straightening   of   the    South 
Branch  of  the  Chicago  River. 

The  abandonment  of  the  proposed  freight  terminal  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania between  Jefferson  and  Desplaines  Streets  and  the  conse- 
quent more  intensive  development  of  the  property  situated  between 
Canal  Street  and  the  River,  will  have  a  valuable  effect  in  paving  the 
way  to  a  more  intensive  use  of  railroad  property  in  other  sections  of 
the  city  and  to  a  more  complete  development  of  the  Chicago  Plan. 

The  provision  in  the  ordinance  for  the  straightening  of  the  Chi- 
cago River  between  Polk  and  Sixteenth  Streets  has  already  been  the 
means  of  bringing  other  railroads  interested  to  a  recognition  of  the 
advantages  that  would  accrue  in  the  straightening  of  the  River,  and 
may — in  the  near  future — make  possible  the  realization  of  this  object, 
which  is  of  such  vital  importance  and  interest  to  the  City. 

The  City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Terminals,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  City  Council  and  the  executive  officers  of  the  City  Gov- 
ernment realized  that  the  framing  of  the  Union  Station  ordinace  was 
but  one  step  in  the  ultimate  solution  of  the  railway  terminal  problem 
in  Chicago. 

The  members  of  the  City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Termi- 
nals felt  that  the  engineers,  lawyers  and  architects  who  had  to  do 
with  these  negotiations,  had  acquired  a  fund  of  general  information 
and  an  experience  which  specially  qualified  them  for  carrying  on  the 
study  of  the  railway  terminal  situation,  and  it  was  convinced  that  it 
would  be  a  matter  of  good  judgment  and  policy  not  only  to  provide 
for  a  Railway  Terminal  Commission  which  would  continue  the  work 
started  with  these  deliberations,  but  also  that  the  persons  who  had 
been  acting  in  an  advisory  capacity  to  the  Committee — by  reason  of 
the  experience  which  they  had  in  the  deliberations  just  closed — would 
be  best  fitted  to  carry  on  the  work,  and  accordingly  recommended 
to  the  City  Council  the  resolution  creating  the  Railway  Terminal 
Commission. 


Shortly  after  its  appointment,  the  Commission  held  a  meeting 
for  purposes  of  organization  and  to  discuss  a  program  for  carrying  out 
its  future  activities. 

As  a  rule,  the  City  Council  adjourns  early  in  July  for  the  sum- 
mer vacation.  During  this  period  it  is  also  customary  for  the  respon- 
sible heads  of  the  railroads  to  absent  themselves  from  Chicago  more 
or  less  continuously,  and  it  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mission that — on  account  of  these  facts — its  activities  vy^ould  be  very 
much  restricted  during  the  summer  months. 

The  educational  value  of  an  inspection  and  study  of  terminal 
facilities  in  the  larger  cities  of  this  country  and  Europe  had  been 
discussed  by  the  Commission,  and  it  had  been  suggested  that  the  in- 
divdual  members  of  the  Commission  might  so  arrange  their  vacation 
trips  as  to  include  an  inspection  of  terminal  facilities,  both  in  this 
country  and  Europe.  This  suggestion  w^as  afterwards  taken  up  by 
the  City  officials,  and  it  was  finally  decided  that  it  would  be  very 
desirable  if  the  Commission  as  a  body  would  formally  undertake 
such  an  inspection,  and  this  trip  was  made  possible  through  the  cor- 
dial co-operation  of  Mayor  Harrison,  who  provided  from  his  con- 
tingent appropriation  for  the  expenses  of  the  official  representatives 
of  the  City. 

In  discussing  this  proposed  inspection,  it  became  apparent  that 
it  would  be  desirable  to  have  the  Chairmen  of  the  Committees  of  the 
City  Council  that  would  have  jurisdiction  over  subjects  likely  to  be 
affected  by  the  findings  of  the  Commission ;  also,  representatives  of 
civic  associations  and  representatives  of  steam  roads  and  traction 
lines,  accompany  the  Commission. 

It  was  accordingly  arranged  that — in  addition  to  the  members 
of  the  Commission — the  party  should  be  made  up  of  the  Chairmen 
of  the  following  Committees  of  the  City  Council :  Finance ;  Local 
Industries ;  Harbors.  Wharves  and  Bridges ;  and  Streets  and  Alleys ; 
also,  a  representative  of  the  Association  of  Commerce,  of  the  City 
Club,  and  of  steam  railroads  and  traction  lines. 

After  the  party  was  made  up  along  these  lines,  it  was  decided 
by  the  Mayor  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  have  representatives  of 
the  Board  of  Education  and  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Health  accompany  the  party  and  make  independent  investigations 
along  lines  of  interest  to  them. 

After  visiting  Toronto,  Montreal,  Boston  and  New  York,  the 
party  sailed  for  Europe  in  July,  1914,  where  an  investigation  of  rail- 
road terminal  and  harbor  facilities  was  made  at  Liverpool,  Man- 
chester, London,  Paris,  Brussels  and  Antwerp. 


It  was  the  plan  of  the  Commission  to  visit  Frankfort,  Vienna, 
Budapest,  Dresden,  Berlin,  Hamburg,  Kiel,  Copenhagen  and  Stock- 
holm, but  on  account  of  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in  Europe,  soon 
after  the  party  reached  Belgium,  it  was  necessary  for  it  to  return  to 
London,  where  it  disbanded. 

At  all  of  the  places  visited  every  courtesy  was  extended  to  the 
Commission  to  facilitate  its  investigations.  Numerous  conferences 
were  held  with  local  officials  and  much  profitable  information  se- 
cured. 

The  practice  of  maintaining  and  operating  independent  railroad 
facilities  serving  the  harbors  of  Liverpool,  Manchester,  London  and 
Antwerp — which  permitted  all  connecting  railroads  to  reach  the  har- 
bor facilities  on  terms  of  absolute  equality — impressed  the  Commis- 
sion as  being  applicable  to  any  future  plan  of  harbor  development 
for  Chicago. 

The  Commission  also  learned  that  the  officials  in  charge  of  rail- 
road operation  in  London  had  given  serious  consideration  to  the 
possibility  of  making  such  changes  in  their  terminals  as  would  per- 
mit the  interchange  of  passenger  traffic  by  rail  between  the  various 
stations,  so  that  the  suburban  trains  entering  one  station  could  be 
routed  through  to  stations  of  other  railroads. 

It  was  stated  by  the  General  Manager  of  an  English  railroad — 
who  was  formerly  General  Superintendent  of  a  railroad  in  the  United 
States- — that  such  an  arrangement  would  reduce  congestion  at  East 
End  stations  at  least  50  per  cent ;  that  it  would  enable  passengers 
arriving  at  the  East  End  stations  to  continue  on  to  the  West  End 
stations  and  vice  versa ;  and  it  was  also  stated  that  it  would  probably 
be  found  advantageous  to  extend  this  service  so  that  it  would  be 
possible  to  inaugurate  through  routing  of  suburban  trains. 

It  was  learned  that  part  of  the  suburban  service  of  London  had 
been  electrified ;  that  this  electrical  operation  had  been  satisfactory 
and  that  the  proposition  to  extend  electrificatien  to  apply  generally 
to  the  suburban  traffic  of  the  railroads  was  under  consideration. 

In  Paris  it  was  found  that  through  passenger  trains  were  being 
routed  through  Paris  to  a  limited  extent  and  that  some  of  the  offi- 
cials were  believers  in  the  principle  of  through  routing  of  trains;  and 
the  possibilities  of  making  connections  that  would  permit  of  through 
routing,  were  pointed  out  to  the  Commission,  showing  that  this  prin- 
ciple is  receiving  consideration. 

It  was  found  in  Brussels  that  a  new  station  was  under  construc- 
tion with  the  intention  of  making  possible  through  routing  of  trains, 
but  in  this  case  the  application  of  through  routing  was  being  made 

7 


on  account  of  local  conditions  which  strongly  favored  this  method  of 
operation. 

Since  returning  to  this  country,  the  Commission — in  addition  to 
giving  consideration  to  the  several  matters  referred  to  it  by  various 
committees  of  the  City  Council — has  given  extended  study  to  the 
railway  terminal  problem  in  Chicago,  especially  in  its  broader  as- 
pects. 

Numerous  sessions  have  been  held  in  which  the  subject  has 
been  under  discussion  and  at  a  number  of  these  meetings  responsible 
heads  of  the  important  railroads  entering  Chicago  have  been  present 
and  have  discussed  the  subject  quite  freely. 

Individual  members  of  the  Commission  have  held  extended  in- 
terviews with  representatives  of  railroads,  shippers  and  general  busi- 
ness interests  and  have  reported  to  the  Commission  the  facts,  opinions 
and  points  of  view  brought  out  at  these  interviews. 

Due  consideration  has  been  given  to  the  information  gained  by 
a  study  of  the  terminal  situation  in  the  other  large  cities  of  this 
country  and  of  Europe  and  of  the  statistical  information  collected  in 
reference  to  the  Chicago  terminals.  As  a  result  of  this  study  and 
discussion,  the  Commission  feels  that  it  has  sufficiently  progressed  in 
its  investigations  to  be  in  a  position  to  set  forth  in  this  preliminary 
report  certain  fundamental  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  solution  of 
the  railway  terminal  situation  in  Chicago,  and  outline  in  a  general 
way  some  of  the  steps  which  may  be  taken  at  this  time  towards  car- 
rying these  conclusions  into  effect. 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES. 

The  fundamentals  of  a  correct  railway  terminal  policy  are  that — 
so  far  as  the  character,  location  and  operation  of  such  terminals  do 
effect  or  can  effect  these  things — they  shall 

Enable  the  railroads  to  handle  their  passenger  and  freight 
traffic  in  what  will  be  to  them  the  most  economical  and  the 
most  efficient  manner; 

Enable  shippers  to  receive  and  deliver  freight,  and  passengers 
to  reach  and  depart  from  trains,  in  what  will  be  to  them 
the  cheapest,  quickest  and  most  convenient  manner; 

Enable  the  general  public  to  conduct  its  business  with  the  least 
practicable  congestion  of  the  City's  streets  and  the  least 
practicable  interference  with  the  expansion  of  existing 
business  districts  and  the  development  of  new  areas  of 
commerce  and  industry ; 

Enable  the  City,  as  a  whole,  to  recognize  that  above  all  it  i^'' 
a  place  where  many  human  beings  live  and  labor,-  and  totMG 
establish  and  work  out  those  plans  of  physical  development 


— both  residential  and  commercial — which,  will  most  effec- 
tively conduce  to  the  prosperity,  health  and  happiness  of  its 
individual  inhabitants. 

The  modern  city  is  created  by  commerce.  Its  prosperity  and 
development  depends  upon  commerce.  Commerce  depends  upon 
transportation.  Without  efficient  transportation  modern  commerce 
and  the  modern  city  are  impossible.  The  most  potent  agency — the 
most  essential  agency — of  commerce  is  the  railway,  because  the 
railway  is  the  greatest  agency  of  transportation.  The  relations  be- 
tw^een  the  city  as  a  center  of  commerce  and  the  railroads  as  an  agency 
of  commerce  are  reciprocal.  Each  depends  upon  the  other  and  each 
must  recognize  the  interests  and  the  necessities  of  the  other.  It  is 
the  prime  object  and  purpose  of  the  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Com- 
mission to  study  this  relationship  as  it  exists  in  Chicago— with  par- 
ticular reference  to  railway  terminals — and  to  suggest  the  general 
principles  and  particular  plans  by  w^hich  the  most  effective  co-opera- 
tion can  be  established  for  the  promotion  of  the  common  interest. 

The  chief  object  of  any  proper  plan  for  the  solution  of  the  rail- 
way terminal  problem  must  be  to  secure  for  the  railroads  and  for 
those  who  use  the  railroads — passengers  and  the  shippers  or  receivers 
of  freight — the  greatest  efficiency  and  economy  of  terminal  facilities 
and  services.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  greatest  efficiency  and 
economy  are  not  secured  if  railway  terminal  facilities  are  not  wisely 
located  or  operated ;  if  they  are  unnecessarily  extended  or  duplicated ; 
if  they  needlessly  interfere  with  the  commercial  or  residential  de- 
velopment of  the  city ;  if,  indeed,  they  fail  to  promote  the  commercial 
convenience  and  residential  attractiveness  of  the  City  to  the  fullest 
extent  that  properly  devised  and  operated  transportation  facilities 
can  promote  these  interests. 

The  most  superficial  examination  of  the  railroad  terminals  of 
Chicago  will  show  that  they  are  neither  located,  constructed  nor 
operated  as  efficiently  or  economically  as  they  should  be,  whether 
viewed  from  the  municipal  or  from  the  railroad  point  of  view.  In 
Chicago,  as  elsewhere,  the  present  situation  is  largely  the  result  of 
past  conditions  for  which  it  would  be  profitless — even  if  it  were  pos- 
sible— to  apportion  the  responsibility.  Our  problem  is  to  deal  with 
the  situation  as  it  is,  and  to  point  out  how  it  can  be  improved. 

If  all  the  railroads  which  enter  the  City  of  Chicago  could  be 
treated  as  one  interest,  and  if  we  were  now  for  the  first  time  estab- 
lishing terminal  tracks  and  facilities  for  these  roads,  the  problem  of 
outlining  a  system  of  railway  terminals  to  connect  the  various  centers 
of  traffic  within  the  City  with  the  trunk  lines  at  the  City  limits  would 

0 


be  comparatively  simple.  Today,  however,  the  chief  usefulness  of 
considering  such  a  problem  is  to  discover  to  what  extent  there  is  at 
present  a  needless,  or  least  an  uneconomic,  complication  of  railroad 
terminal  facilities  within  the  City. 

If  all  of  the  railroads  entering  Chicago  were  owned  and  con- 
trolled by  one  interest,  or  were  being  operated  with  the  sole  view  of 
producing  as  a  whole  the  most  efificient  service  and  the  largest  net 
revenue,  it  is  certain  that  the  existing  terminals  and  terminal  ap- 
proaches would  be  simplified  and  consolidated  and  that  property  no 
longer  needed  for  consolidated  or  unified  operation — after  making 
due  allowance  for  the  future  growth  of  traffic — would  be  disposed  of. 
The  remaining  properties  would  be  utilized  to  their  full  capacity  by 
using  them  for  several — or  all — lines  instead  of  for  one  road,  or  for 
a  few  lines  as  at  present.  Unnecessary  and  complicated  crossings 
would  be  eliminated  and  valuable  real  estate  would  be  intensively 
improved. 

An  ideal  system  of  railway  terminals  cannot  be  substituted  for 
the  terminal  tracks  and  facilities  which  already  exist  within  the 
City.  All  of  the  railroads  entering  Chicago  are  not  owned  or  con- 
trolled by  a  single  interest.  Neither  these  railroads  nor  their  ter- 
minals can  be  operated  with  the  sole  view  of  producing  as  a  whole  the 
most  efficient  service  and  the  largest  net  revenue. 

Nevertheless,  the  measure  of  the  correctness  of  any  solution  of 
the  terminal  situation  must  be  the  nearness  with  which  it  approaches 
the  ideal  solution  thus  suggested. 

EFFECT   OF    COMPETITIVE   THEORY. 

We  have  adopted  in  this  country  the  principle  of  governmental 
regulation  of  privately  owned  railroads  and  that  principle  should 
logically  be  applied  to  the  entire  railroad  situation.  Its  partial  ap- 
plication has  necessarily  resulted  at  one  time  in  treating  the  rail- 
roads as  regulated  monopolies  and  at  another  time  in  enforcing  com- 
mercial competition  between  them.  One  or  the  other  of  these  prin- 
ciples must  give  way.  It  is  proving  impossible  to  maintain  a  bal- 
ance between  them.  Even  those  who  believe  that  we  can  still  main- 
tain a  certain  degree  of  competition — while  at  the  same  time  apply- 
ing the  general  principles  of  regulated  monopoly — must  concede  that 
one  or  the  other  of  these  principles  must  be  dominant. 

It  must  be  apparent  that  in  a  business  essentially  monopolistic, 
efficiency  and  economy  is  to  be  found  in  the  substitution  of  co-opera- 
tion under  public  regulation  for  at  least  that  kind  or  degree  of  com- 

10 


petition  which  is  destructive  and  wasteful.  This  applies  to  the  whole 
field  of  railroading,  including  terminal  facilities  and  services. 

Public  statements  have  recently  appeared  from  distinguished 
railroad  officials,  emphasizing  the  enormous  waste  due  to  the  un- 
necessary and  uneconomic  duplication  of  freight  and  passenger  facili- 
ties and  services. 

Where  there  are  several  railroad  routes  between  two  points,  it 
is  a  safe  general  deduction  that — when  distances,  grades  and  other 
operating  elements  are  compared — through  traffic  between  these 
points  can  be  moved  most  economically — and  most  efficiently — over 
one  of  these  routes,  to  the  extent  of  its  reasonable  capacity.  Both  the 
public  and  the  railroads  as  a  whole  lose  to  the  extent  that  any  part  of 
the  traffic  is  moved  at  an  unnecessary  cost. 

In  these  days — when  railroad  rates  are  being  increased  with  the 
approval  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  because  the  net 
revenues  of  the  railroads  as  a  whole  are  not  regarded  as  adequate  to 
sustain  general  railroad  credit,  as  well  as  to  pay  fair  dividends  for 
individual  roads — it  is  clear  that,  to  the  extent  that  traffic  is  not  car- 
ried over  the  most  economical  line,  the  public  is  bearing  an  unneces- 
sary burden. 

The  difficulty  is  that  as  long  as  each  railroad  is  considered  apart 
from  all  others  and  as  a  competitor  of  all  others,  each  railroad  seeks  to 
obtain  as  much  traffic  as  possible — certainly  if  it  can  be  moved  at 
any  profit  whatever  to  the  particular  road — even  though  the  traffic 
thereby  moves  over  longer  distances  and  heavier  grades  than  are 
encountered  on  other  lines.  Under  this  system  the  total  traffic  cost 
must  be  greater  than  is  necessary  and  this  unnecessary  cost  must  be 
borne  by  the  public. 

From  the  railroad  point  of  view  the  remedy  for  this  is  the  per- 
mission of  "pooling,"  and  under  a  system  of  publicly  regulated  but 
privately  owned  railroads,  it  may  be  that  legalized  pooling  under 
effective  public  control  is  the  best  available  device  for  maintaining  a 
working  balance  between  regulation  and  competition — and  this  gen- 
eral conclusion  has  its  application  to  the  terminal  situation. 

European  practice  distinguishes  the  line  haul  from  the  terminal 
service  and  makes  a  separate  charge  for  each.  There  are  some  indi- 
cations of  a  tendency  towards  the  adoption  of  this  practice  in  the 
United  'States.  Assuming  that  each  charge  is  fair  and  just  for  the 
service  rendered,  there  may  be  distinct  advantages  in  separating 
terminal  charges  from  haul  charges,  especially  if  it  leads  to  the  treat- 
ment of  each  terminal  area  as  a  unit  and  its  operation  as  a  unit. 

11 


In  the  larger  cities,  such  as  Chicago,  a  single  terminal  company 
could  undoubtedly  operate  a  combined  and  co-operative  terminal 
system  with  a  substantial  decrease  of  cost  and  increase  of  efficiency. 
The  suggestion  of  such  a  system  has  recently  appeared  from  railroad 
sources  in  Chicago. 

If  a  single  terminal  company  should  take  over — by  lease  or  oper- 
ating agreement — all  of  the  existing  terminals  in  a  city  like  Chicago, 
an  ideal  terminal  system  could  be  approximated,  and  each  of  the  ex- 
isting railroads  could  receive  its  due  share  of  the  operating  results,  if 
these  results  were  divided  in  direct  proportion  to  the  value  of  the 
properties  which  the  several  companies  would  contribute  to  the  com- 
mon terminal  system.  It  may  be  that  the  intensive  development  of 
railroad  terminals — by  the  construction  of'  warehouses  and  other 
buildings — could  be  more  easily  accomplished  through  the  agency  of 
a  terminal  company  than  if  directly  undertaken  by  the  railroads  them- 
selves. 

CO-OPERATIVE  TERMINALS. 

With  respect  to  terminal  facilities  and  services,  at  least,  the  ad- 
vantages of  competition  seem  negligible  when  compared  with  its  dis- 
advantages. That  the  railroads  themselves  have  recognized  this  with 
respect  to  passenger  terminals  is  evidenced  by  the  existence  of  Union 
Passenger  Stations  in  so  many  of  our  larger  cities  throughout  the 
country.  An  analysis  of  the  situation  will  show  not  only  that  the 
same  considerations  that  brought  about  the  adoption  of  the  Union 
Passenger  Station  apply  to  the  terminal  handling  of  freight,  but  that 
the  very  forces  that  brought  about  the  Union  Passenger  Stations  are 
today  compelling  favorable  consideration  of  Union  Freight  Terminal 
plans. 

Union  Passenger  Stations  were  brought  about  because  of  the 
pressure  of  a  constantly  increasing  passenger  traffic  upon  the  existing 
terminal  facilities  of  individual  roads  and  the  necessity  of  locating  the 
terminals  in  or  near  the  centers  of  local  population.  Because  of  the 
high  land  values — largely  created  by  the  railroads  themselves — in 
the  very  localities  in  which  it  was  necessary,  both  for  the  convenience 
of  the  public  and  the  advantage  of  the  railroads,  to  locate  the  new 
stations,  the  cost  of  separate  individual  stations  became  so  excessive 
that  the  advantages  of  co-operation  were  forced  upon  the  recognition 
of  the  railroads  and  the  public.  The  public  recognized  the  conven- 
ience to  it  of  co-operative  terminal  facilities  for  passenger  traffic. 
The  railroads  recognized  the  economy  to  them  and  the  increased 
efficiency  of  co-operative  Union  Passenger  Stations. 

12 


In  substituting  co-operation  for  competition  it  was  not  always 
easy  to  overcome  the;  acquired  or  inherited  ideas  of  an  earlier  era, 
and  here  and  there  competitive  passenger  terminals  still  survive  in 
spite  of  what  seem  obvious  disadvantages.  So  it  has  been,  is,  and  will 
be  in  terminal  handling  of  freight.  Upon  the  one  hand  the  pressure 
of  the  public  and  upon  the  other  hand  the  necessities  of  the  railroads 
will  compel,  first  the  consideration  and  then  the  gradual  adoption  of 
co-operative  methods  and  facilities  in  the  place  of  competitive  meth- 
ods and  facilities. 

Co-operation  will  not  easily  or  quickly  become  universal.  Com- 
petitive traditions  and  preferences  will  here  and  there  survive.  It 
is  already  clear,  however,  that  the  key  to  the  solution  of  our  railway 
terminal  problem — with  respect  to  freight  as  well  as  with  respect  to 
passengers — is  to  be  found  in  the  substitution  of  joint  and  co-oper- 
ative terminals  for  separate  and  competitive  terminals;  this  substitu- 
tion to  be  brought  about,  not  by  some  sudden  or  drastic  adoption  and 
execution  of  a  complete  revolutionary  plan  covering  the  whole  rail- 
way terminal  situation,  but  by  such  steps  as  may  be  taken  from  time 
to  time  with  due  regard  to  financial  and  operating  conditions.  Cer- 
tain important  steps  of  this  character  undoubtedly  can  and  should  be 
taken  at  once  or  in  the  near  future  for  the  establishment  of  co-oper- 
ative terminals  and  the  readjustment  of  existing  terminals  to  con- 
form to  correct  principles  of  terminal  development.  But  the  essen- 
tial thing  is  that  from  now  on  no  steps  shall  be  taken  in  the  opposite 
direction,  thus  creating  unnecessary  barriers  to  proper  development 
in  the  future.  The  City  should  co-operate  cordially  in  assisting  the 
railroads  in  the  execution  of  all  plans  that  are  in  the  right  direction. 

It  is  clear  that  the  continued  application  of  the  principle  of  com- 
petition in  terminal  development  can  only  result  in  increasing  the 
difficulties  of  any  logical  improvement  in  the  terminal  facilities  of 
the  City  as  a  whole,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  competitive  principle  is 
anything  but  economical  from  the  point  of  view  of  railway  operation. 
In  any  great  industrial  community  such  as  Chicago,  there  develops 
not  only  one  principal  business  district,  but  also  outlying  and  widely 
separated  local  centers  of  industry  and  traffic  requiring  facilities  of 
transportation  and  offering  profitable  returns  to  the  railroads  which 
furnish  such  facilities.  If  each  railroad  seeks  to  extend  its  own 
terminals  not  only  into  the  central  business  district  but  also  into  each 
of  the  outlying  local  centers,  it  is  apparent  upon  principle  and  demon- 
strated by  experience  that  the  result  is  unsatisfactory,  both  to  the 
city  and  to  the  railroads  as  a  whole. 

IS 


The  complete  application  of  the  competitive  system  to  railway 
freight  terminals  falls  of  its  own  weight.  Each  road  cannot  secure 
and  maintain  terminal  facilities  covering  the  entire  terminal  area  of 
such  a  City  as  Chicago.  It  cannot  secure,  maintain  and  operate  ade- 
quate terminal  facilities  in  each  and  every  section  or  district  within 
the  metropolitan  terminal  areas  where  important  freight  traffic  is  to 
be  had.  In  many  cases  this  is  physically  impracticable,  and  in  many 
more  cases  it  is  financially  impracticable.  Nevertheless  the  attempt 
is  made — under  existing  methods — to  cover  as  much  as  possible  of 
the  entire  field  by  separate  and  competitive  terminals,  with  the  re- 
sultant complication  of  facilities,  and  a  financial  investment  not  justi- 
fied by  the  revenue  secured. 

In  that  portion  of  the  field  which  a  particular  road  is  unable  to 
reach  with  its  own  facilities,  it  nevertheless  competes  for  all  traffic 
that  can  be  routed  over  its  lines  by  having  freight  switched  to  or  from 
it  over  the  lines  and  with  the  equipment  and  force  of  the  railroads 
which  do  physically  connect  with  the  points  at  which  the  freight  is 
received  or  delivered.  For  these  switching  services,  charges  are 
made  which  the  shipper  naturally  will  not  pay  if  he  can  route  his 
freight  over  a  road  which  has  direct  terminal  connections  and  which, 
therefore,  imposes  no  charges  upon  him.  These  charges  are,  there- 
fore, absorbed  by  the  competing  road  which  does  not  have  direct 
terminal  connections  with  the  particular  shipping  district  or  section. 
All  charges  thus  absorbed  are  taken  out  of  the  amount  which  such  a 
roads  receives  from  the  shipper,  which  is  the  regular  Chicago  rate. 

This  competition  is  so  unrestrained,  and — in  particular  instances 
■ — apparently  so  uninformed,  that  the  expense  to  the  railroad  of  secur- 
ing freight  in  this  manner  often  reduces  the  net  receipts  from  such 
freight  to  a  point  where  there  is  an  actual  excess  of  operating  costs 
over  the  revenue  received.  In  some  instances  there  is  an  actual 
excess  of  absorbed  switching  charges  alone  over  the  total  freight 
revenue  received  from  particular  shipments.  In  many  cases  where 
a  railroad  pushes  its  own  terminals  into  particular  districts  where 
freight  traffic  is  especially  important,  it  is  more  than  doubtful 
whether  the  traffic — thus  divided  between  competitors — received  by 
this  railroad  pays  a  justifiable  return  upon  the  cost  of  its  separate 
competitive  terminal  and  its  maintenance  and  operation. 

In  the  terminal  district  of  Chicago  as  a  whole — and  the  same 
thing  applies  to  other  cities — the  unnecessary  complication  of  ter- 
minal facilities  and  operating  costs  is  so  extensive  that  it  is  appalling 
in  its  effect  upon  the  railroads,  the  shippers  and  the  public;  and  the 
future  outlook  along  these  lines  is  by  -fliany — in  and  out  of  railroad 

14 


service — believed  to  be  becoming  worse  and  worse.  The  investments 
by  railroads  in  unused  or  little  used  property  to  protect  real  or  fan- 
cied competitive  positions  or  interests,  is  also  a  source  of  great  ex- 
pense to  the  railroads  and  ultimately  to  the  public — although  not 
often  fully  realized  as  such.  The  interest  on  these  investments  is 
absorbed  in  the  general  interest  charges  on  the  entire  property  and  is 
thus  lost  sight  of  as  being  an  expense  due  to  unproductive  invest- 
ments, nor  is  due  allowance  made  for  the  natural  accretion  in  the 
value  of  such  property,  which  is  often  withheld  from  profitable  use 
for  considerable  periods  of  time.  , 

If  the  terminal  situation  were  treated  co-operatively  instead  of 
competitively,  there  would  be  an  immediate  simplification  of  the  tan- 
gled network  of  tracks  that  now  exist;  the  release  for  general  com- 
mercial purposes  of  much  valuable  property  now  held  by  railroads 
for  present  competitive  purposes  or  prospective  competitive  needs ; 
the  reduction  of  operating  costs  in  the  terminal  handling  of  freight 
and  the  increase  of  efficiency.  To  the  public  this  would  mean  not 
only  the  improvement  of  the  service  to  the  shippers,  but  the  reduction 
of  the  street  congestion  and  the  removal  of  existing  obstacles  to  the 
growth  and  development  of  the  City, 

PASSENGER  SERVICE. 

The  recognition  of  the  foregoing  principles  has  made  greater 
progress  with  respect  to  passenger  service  than  it  has  with  respect 
to  freight  service,  and,  fortunately,  in  a  large  city  passenger  terminals 
can  advantageously  be  separated  from  freight  terminals. 

A  single  Union  Passenger  Station,  even  if  principally  devoted  to 
through  passenger  service,  should  not  be  made  so  large  or  embrace 
so  many  roads  that  its  very  size  reduces  its  advantages  below  those 
that  would  come  from  dividing  the  service  between  two  or  more 
Union  Stations,  each  serving  fewer  roads.  There  is  a  point  at  which 
size  becomes  so  unwieldly  that  it  destroys  or  seriously  lessens  the 
advantages  of  combination,  but  short  of  this  result  the  principle  of 
co-operation  should,  in  general,  be  applied  to  the  passenger  service, 
although  local  stations  may  still  be  found  necessary  or  convenient 
for  particular  localities. 

THROUGH  ROUTING. 

The  advantages  to  the  railroads,  as  well  as  to  the  public,  of 
co-operative  passenger  terminals,  would  be  more  generally  recog- 
nized if  it  were  not  for  the  mistake  which  has  heretofore  been  made 

16 


in  many  Union  Passenger  Stations,  of  erecting-  monumental  build- 
ings, not  only  for  their  imposing  architectural  effect,  but  also  to  pro- 
vide combined  accommodations  for  through  passengers  and  suburban 
passengers  in  the  same  building. 

It  is  seriously  questioned  whether  railroad  companies  are  justi- 
fied in  imposing  upon  the  traveling  public  the  burden  of  costs  due  to 
unnecessary  ornamental  or  monumental  architecture,  and  the  huge 
size  of  many  Union  Passenger  Stations  could  be  materially  reduced 
by  recognizing  the  different  necessities  of  the  suburban  and  the 
through  service.  The  two  classes  of  service  do  not  desire  or  require 
the  same  accommodations.  Each  would  be  better  served  if  given 
separate  accommodations  more  directly  adapted  to  its  needs. 

By  through  routing  suburban  passenger  trains  instead  of  oper- 
ating them  into  and  out  of  stub-end  terminals  as  at  present,  the  bur- 
den of  the  suburban  ^ervice  upon  the  railroads  would  be  lessened 
and  the  value  of  the  service  to  the  public  would  be  increased. 

The  suburban  service  is,  in  many  respects,  more  nearly  related 
to  the  service  performed  by  street  and  interurban  railway  lines  than 
to  the  through  service  of  the  steam  railroads,  and  these  various  ser- 
vices can  be  co-ordinated  with  great  advantage  and  in  a  manner  to 
secure  a  more  intensive  utilization  of  existing  rights  of  way. 

Railroad  officials  have — in  many  instances — been  deterred  from 
favoring  Union  Passenger  Stations  because  of  fixed  charges  and 
operating  costs  due  to  the  failure  to  recognize  the  foregoing  limita- 
tions of  size  and  cost. 

FREIGHT  SERVICE. 

The  principle  of  co-operative  terminal  facilities  and  services 
should  be  applied  to  the  freight  traffic  as  well  as  to  the  passenger 
traffic.  Instructive  applications  of  this  principle  are  to  be  found  in 
'■he  operations  of  the  Minnesota  Transfer  Railway  at  Minneapolis  and 
*^t.  Paul  and  the  operations  at  Clearing  in  Chicago.  Both  of  these 
enterprises  are  clearly  demonstrating  their  advantages  to  the  public 
''^d  to  the  railroads.  The  original  purpose  and  the  present  principle 
business  of  both  these  enterprises  is  the  handling  of  interchange  car- 
load freight  outside  of  the  congested  areas  of  the  cities  in  or  near 
which  they  are  respectively  located,  so  that  such  freight  which  is  not 
intended  for  consumption  or  use  within  these  congested  areas  need 
not  enter  these  areas  at  all.  The  obvious  advantages  and  economy 
of  this  principle  are  so  clear  that  it  would  seem  to  be  axiomatic  and 
vet  it  has  received  only  a  limited  and  reluctant  application  in  Ameri- 
can railroading. 

10 


This  principle  should  clearly  be  extended  so  as  to  cover  all  of 
the  traffic  of  the  railroads  entering  larger  centers  of  population  and  it 
would  probably  be  found  to  be  of  universal  application.  A  system 
embodying  the  same  general  principles  should  undoubtedly  be  applied 
to  the  interchange  of  less  than  carload  (L.  C.  L.)  freight. 

A  start  in  the  application  of  this  principle  as  pertaining  to  carload 
freight  has  been  made  in  Chicago  at  Clearing,  where  twelve  railroads 
now  co-operate  in  the  interchange  of  carload  freight. 

Af  the  Minnesota  Transfer  at  Minneapolis,  this  principle  has  been 
applied  not  only  to  carload  freight  but  to  the  L.  C.  L.  freight,  and 
during  the  year  ending  August  31,  1914,  there  was  transferred  145,874 
tons  (2.91%  of  the  total  business)  of  L.  C.  L.  freight.  Of  this  L.  C.  L. 
freight  transfer,  85%  was  through  interchange  freight  and  15%  was 
city  freight. 

LESS  THAN  CARLOAD  FREIGHT. 

Much  of  the  existing  congestion  and  terminal  expense  is  due 
to  the  attempt  to  load  outbound  L.  C.  L.  freight  into  schedule  cars 
at  the  central  freight  stations.  The  increase  of  traffic  at  these  points 
causes  the  congestion  of  the  city  streets  to  the  delay  and  expense  of 
the  shipper  and  the  inconvenience  of  the  public.  The  freight  stations 
and  team  tracks  become  congested  beyond  the  point  of  economical 
operation,  and  their  area  or  capacity  is  increased  at  abnormal  and 
unjustifiable  expense  to  the  railroads.  Many,  if  not  all,  of  these  dis- 
advantages would  be  obviated  by  loading  outbound  L.  C.  L.  freight 
at  the  receiving  stations  or  team  tracks  directly  into  trap  cars  to  be 
taken  in  these  cars  to  outlying  stations  or  yards  located  upon  less 
valuable  property  a*nd  equipped  especially  for  the  sorting  and  sched- 
ule loading  of  L.  C.  L.  freight.* 

This  principle  is  already  being  successfully  and  profitably  applied 
by  certain  of  the  larger  railroads  to  portions,  at  least,  of  the  L.  C.  L. 
freight  at  Chicago,  Minneapolis,  St.  Paul  and  elsewhere,  and  it  is 
confidently  believed  that  increased  advantages  would  arise  from  the 
co-operation  of  all  the  railroads  in  establishing  and  operating  one  or 
more  outlying  clearing  plants  or  yards  at  which  outgoing  L.  C.  L. 


*William  H.  Lyford,  General  Counsel  for  the  Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois 
Railroad  Company,  in  an  address  before  the  Chicago  Engineers'  Club — which 
was  introduced  in  evidence  before  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  at 
a  recent  hearing  in  Chicago — stated  that  E.  H.  Lee,  Vice-President  and  Chief 
Engineer  of  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  Railroad  Company,  estimates 
"the  present  average  cost  of  transfer  freight  under  present  methods  at  $2.61 
per  ton,  and  the  entire  cost  of  adopting  the  clearing  method  will  be  $1.15  per 
ton,  thus  saving  $1.46  per  ton,  or  56%,  which,  when  applied  to  the  6,000  tons 
of  transfer  freight  handled  300  days  in  the  year,  amounts  to  $2,622,000." 

17 


freight  can  be  assembled,  interchanged  and  loaded  into  schedule  cars. 
The  extent  to  which  this  system  should  be  applied  to  all  L.  C.  L. 
freight  should  be  determined  by  local  conditions  and  by  limitations 
established  by  experience.  Whether  all  outgoing  L.  C.  L.  freight  in 
a  city  as  large  as  Chicago  should  be  brought  to  a  single  outlying  clear- 
ing station  raises  the  same  question  of  size  limitation  above  dis- 
cussed with  reference  to  Union  Passenger  Stations. 

It  may  be  that  two  or  more  such  clearing  stations  or  yards — prop- 
erly located  to  receive  and  handle  freight  destined  for  the  different 
districts  or  parts  of  the  country  into  which  freight  traffic  and  the 
existing  railroad  systems  naturally  subdivide  it  in  their  relations  to  a 
particular  city — would  be  more  advantageous  than  a  single  clearing 
station  of  this  character. 

UNIVERSAL  FREIGHT  STATIONS. 

This  Commission  is  convinced  that  the  co-operative  principle 
should  be  applied  by  the  establishment  in  the  centers  of  trafific  of  at 
least  a  certain  number  of  universal  freight  receiving  stations  for  out- 
bound L.  C.  L.  freight,  so  that  shippers  may  deliver  to  these  stations 
for  all  the  railroads  or  for  properly  classified  groups  of  railroads. 
This  would  greatly  reduce  the  amount  of  teaming  and  the  street  con- 
gestion that  results  from  unnecessary  teaming. 

There  is  some  question  as  to  whether  the  universal  station  will 
increase  the  cost  to  the  railroads  of  handling  outbound  L.  C.  L. 
freight.  This  Commission  is  not  convinced  that  it  would  increase 
the  net  cost  to  the  railroads,  but  if  it  is  demonstrated  that  the  cost  of 
handling  freight  at  such  universal  freight  houses  is  greater  than  at 
the  central  receiving  stations  of  the  individual  roads,  shippers  utiliz- 
ing the  universal  stations  and  thus  reducing  their  teaming  cost,  might 
be  appropriately  required  to  pay  a  proper  charge  in  addition  to  the 
regular  Chicago  freight  rate.  This  matter  can  safely  be  left  to  be  de- 
termined by  experience  and  to  be  regulated  by  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  and  the  State  Public  Utilities  Commission. 

THE  TWO-LEVEL  PLAN. 

This  Commission  believes  that  serious  consideration  should  be 
given  to  the  advantages  of  the  two  or  more  level  plan  in  the  future 
development  of  freight  facilities  in  congested  areas.  This  plan  in- 
creases the  capacity  of  a  given  area  considerably  over  100%,  depend- 
ing upon  the  nature  of  the  plan  used.  It  permits  the  utilization  of 
greater  space  for  standing  teams  and  trucks  and  makes  possible  the 

18 


opening  of  thoroughfares  over  property  devoted  to  railroad  uses  upon 
the  lower  level,  thus  increasing  the  value  of  these  very  facilities  for 
the  receipt  and  delivery  of  freight. 

INTENSIVE  DEVELOPMENT. 

By  receiving  inbound  freight  upon  the  upper  level  and  delivering 
inbound  freight  upon  the  lower  level,  the  expense  of  raising  or  low- 
ering freight  upon  two  levels  can  be  reduced  and  economies  in  truck- 
ing can  be  effected  by  intelligent  design.*  The  logical  extension  of 
this  plan  is  undoubtedly  the  utilization  of  the  space  above  the  ter- 
minals so  as  to  reduce  the  fixed  charges  against  the  freight  handling 
facilities. 

Exceedingly  instructive  developments  of  this  general  principle 
are  being  made  in  New  York  City.  It  is  estimated  that  the  New  York 
Central  and  its  partner,  the  New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford,  have 
invested  $9,600,000  in  commercial  buildings  on  portions  of  the  ter- 
minal area  in  New  York  City.  The  New  Haven  is  merely  a  tenant 
of  the  railroad  facilities,  but  is  a  partner  in  the  commercial  develop- 
ment of  the  terminal  area.  Lessees  of  building  sites  also  have  as- 
sisted in  financing  construction  to  the  extent  of  $1,000,000,  and  the- 


*Mr.  E.  H.  Lee,  Vice  President  and  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Chicago  & 
Western  Indiana  Railroad,  in  a  paper  presented  to  the  American  Railway 
Engineering  Association,  in  discussing  the  possibilities  of  two  level  freight 
houses,  sums  up  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  as  follows: 

1.  Diminishes  the  investment  in  land; 

2.  Adds  to  the  cost  of  the  improvement; 

3.  Is  especially  feasible  on  side  hill  locations,  or  where  grades  are  sep- 
arated; 

4.  Saves  the  space  sometimes  used  for  inclines  between  streets  and  drive- 
ways; 

5.  Improves  the  street  system,  making  the  freight  houses  more  accessi- 
ble; 

6.  Decreases  the  operating  cost  by  shortening  the  trucking  distance  and 

by  utilizing  the   operating  forces; 

7.  Adds  to  the  operating  cost  the  item  of  elevating  or  dropping  freight. 
In  discussing  these  items,  Mr.  Lee  uses  a  basis  of  2,000  square  feet  per 

car  for  single  level  development,  and  1,350  square  feet  for  two  level  develop- 
ment, and  states  that  it  may  be  possible  to  make  a  double  level  development 
with  a  capacity  of  1,000  square  feet  per  car.  Studies  made  by  this  Commis- 
sion indicate  that  this  area  can  be  considerably  reduced  below  1,000  square 
feet. 

Mr.  Lee  shows,  however,  under  his  assumptions  that  the  cost  of  a  single 
level  plan  at  $1.00  per  square  foot  and  a  double  level  plan  at  $4.00  per  square 
foot — the  land  value  taken  at  $10.00  per  square  foot — is  a  saving  of  17%  in 
the  cost  of  improvements;  land  value  at  $15.00  per  square  foot  a  saving  of 
20%,  and  land  value  at  $20.00  per  square  foot,  a  saving  of  26%. 

Mr.  Lee  discusses  the  possibility  of  reducing  the  trucking  system  by  the 
more  compact  arrangement  possible  in  the  two  level  plan  and  gives  his  con- 
clusions as  follows:  "Double  decking,  by  decreasing  both  the  investment  per 
car  and  the  operating  expense — as  it  also  adapts  itself  to  grade  separation — 
is  a  logical  method  of  improvement.  Its  adoption  for  city  L.  C.  L.  freight 
terminals  may  be  expected  to  become  more  general  as  conditions  demand." 

19 


application  of  this  principle  is  to  be  extended.  The  figures  given  do 
not  include  the  head  house,  which  constitutes  what  is  usually  re- 
'garded  as  the  railroad  station.  The  Boston  News  Bureau  in  a 
recent  analysis  of  the  financial  operations  of  the  New  York  Central 
during  the  past  ten  years  says : 

"It  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  sharp  distinction  between 
expenditures  in  this  terminal  area  for  railroad  facilities  and  for 
commercial  or  real  estate  development.  The  latter  not  only  do 
not  increase  the  financial  burden  on  the  railroad,  but  will  even- 
tually lift  from  it  the  larger  part,  if  not  all,  the  ground  rent  for 
what  is  probably  the  most  expensive  large  terminal  site  in  the 
world.  Leases  of  these  buildings  or  of  space  for  the  erection 
of  buildings  are  made  to  provide  that  tenants  not  only  pay  inter- 
est on  the  value  of  the  land,  but  in  the  course  of  years  amortize 
the  cost  of  the  buildings  themselves.  Rent  of  the  ground  cov- 
ered by  the  station  and  office  buildings,  it  is  true,  will  for  the 
present  fall  upon  the  railroad,  though  the  'head  house'  is  so  con- 
structed that  offices  may  be  reared  above  it  to  a  height  of  22 
stories,  while  the  six-story  office  buildings  can  be  similarly  built 
upward,  when  the  demand  for  floor  space  in  this  vicinity  justifies 
such  a  step." 

The  adoption  of  such  principles  as  the  foregoing  would  reduce 
the  amount  of  expensive  property  necessary  to  be  acquired  and  held 
by  the  railroads  for  terminal  purposes,  and  would  not  only  justify 
but  provide  an  incentive  for  the  industrial  development  of  the  termi- 
nal properties  retained  by  the  railroads  in  the  various  business,  manu- 
facturing or  industrial  districts. 

It  is  for  the  interest  of  the  public — as  well  as  of  the  railroads — 
that  terminal  properties  now  only  superficially  utilized  for  tracks 
or  freight  houses  should  be  developed  over  these  facilities  for  ware- 
house, manufacturing  or  other  purposes,  so  as  to  make  this  very 
valuable  property  produce  a  proper  revenue  and  afford  the  merchants 
and  manufacturers  the  great  advantages  of  rentable  space  in  build- 
ings directly  connected  with  terminal  facilities.  The  Cupples  Ware- 
house in  St.  Louis  is  an  interesting  example  of  such  development. 

ELECTRIFICATION. 

A  railroad  company  not  only  finds  it  unnecessary  to  conduct  both 
its  freight  and  its  passenger  business  at  the  same  terminal  location 
or  over  the  same  terminal  tracks,  but  it  usually  discovers  operating 
advantages  in  the  separation  of  freight  and  passenger  terminals.  This 
is  of  great  practical  importance  in  preparing  for  the  electrification 
of  railway  terminals.  Both  the  railroads  and  the  public  are  looking 
forward  to  the  substitution  of  some  less  objectionable  motive  power 

20 


for  the  present  steam  locomotive,  especially  in  the  operation  of  passen- 
ger terminals  and  terminal  tracks. 

The  Committee  on  Smoke  Abatement  and  Electrification  of  the 
Chicago  Association  of  Commerce  has — for  more  than  four  years — 
been  making  a  detailed  study  of  this  question,  and  its  report  is  soon 
expected.  Without  anticipating  the  findings  of  this  report,  it  seems 
safe  to  assume  from  the  evidence  generally  available,  that  electricity — 
applied  either  by  means  of  the  overhead  trolly  or  by  means  of  the 
third  rail  direct  contact  system — is  the  only  motive  power  other  than 
steam  that  has  demonstrated  its  practicability  for  such  extensive  ap- 
plication as  would  be  necessary  at  Chicago. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  cost  of  electrification  will  be  greatly  re- 
duced by  simplifying  and  unifying  the  passenger  tracks  entering  the 
city ;  by  removing  the  present  tangle  of  cross  lines ;  by  establish- 
ment of  direct  instead  of  roundabout  routes  within  the  city ;  and  by 
the  joint  use  of  tracks  available  for  and  adequate  for  more  railway 
companies  than  those  which  now  utilize  these  particular  tracks.  The 
adoption  of  outlying  co-operative  freight  stations  would  greatly 
simplify  the  electrification  of  the  more  central  freight  terminals  and 
tracks. 

THE  CHICAGO  TERMINAL  SITUATION. 

The  very  geographic  and  topographic  conditions  which  have 
caused  the  development  of  Chicago  as  a  railroad  and  commercial 
center  has  conduced  to  complicate  its  railroad  terminal  situation. 

Located  in  a  level  country,  on  the  western  shore  of  Lake  Michi- 
gan, there  have  been  no  physical  obstacles  to  the  location  of  railroad 
approaches  except  directly  from  the  East.  The  railroad  lines  of 
the  West  and  Northwest  have  naturally  converged  at  the  southern 
end  of  Lake  Michigan  as  the  most  convenient  point  for  the  inter- 
change of  traffic  betwen  these  lines  and  the  lines  serving  the  East. 

Here  at  Chicago  most  of  the  great  railroad  systems  of  the  country 
converge.  Each  of  these  roads  has  sought  a  separate  entrance  to  the 
City  and  has  endeavored  to  secure  terminal  facilities  as  extensive 
and  as  advantageously  located  from  a  competitive  point  of  view 
as  those  possessed  by  the  roads  that  have  preceded  it. 

There  being  no  physical  obstacle  to  overcome — on  account  of  the 
uniform  level  of  the  City — each  road  has  been  actuated  solely  by 
motives  of  expediency  in  locating  its  terminals.  It  has  been  the  line 
of  least  resistance — financially  considered — which  has  chiefly  deter- 
mined the  location  in  most  cases.  Inasmuch  as  most  of  the  roads 
were  located  during  the  era  when  grade  crossings  were  tolerated  by 

21 


the  public  and  advocated  by  the  railroads  because  of  the  immediate 
economy,  the  result  has  been  a  perfect  maze  of  terminal  approaches 
crossing  each  other  and  leading  into  the  very  heart  of  the  city. 

RAILROADS  IN   THE  CITY  PLAN. 

The  physical  development  of  a  city  is  largely  affected  by 
the  arrangement  of  the  railroad  lines  and  the  distribution  of  the 
railroad  properties.  These  lines  and  properties,  laid  dow^n  through 
open  country  when  the  city  was  young  and  small  in  area,  have  had 
a  strong  influence  in  determining  the  direction  and  character  of  the 
growth  of  the  city.  The  establishment  of  railroads  without  proper 
provision  for  the  extension  of  streets  and  highways  across  their 
rights-of-way  and  yards,  has  a  retarding  effect  on  the  spread  of  the 
city  into  outer  areas.  This  is  especially  true  of  Chicago  in  certain  dis- 
tricts and  has  tended  to  produce  its  scattered  and  uneven  .develop- 
ment. 

These  railroad  locations  have  determined — to  a  large  extent — the 
use  to  which  adjacent  property  is  put.  They  attract  industries  along 
the  right-of-way,  and  the  more  numerous  they  are  the  more  scattered 
and  spread  out  these  industries  become.  This  industrial  develop- 
ment has,  in  turn,  influenced  the  residential  development  in  its  neigh- 
borhood and  between  the  different  lines  of  railroad. 

The  multiplicity  of  railroad  entrances  into  Chicago  has  led  to 
the  cutting  up  of  the  City  into  many  comparatively  small  areas  given 
over  partly  to  industry  and  partly  to  residence. 

The  multiplicity  of  lines  has  led  to  numerous  large  yard  and 
terminal  areas  which  form  barriers  to  symmetrical  development.  For 
example,  in  the  large  yards  of  the  Burlington  and  North  Western 
Railroads,  there  is  a  total  absence  of  north  and  south  streets  for  the 
half  mile  between  Western  Avenue  and  Robey  Street,  and  in  the 
next  half  mile  east  there  are  only  four  north  and  south  streets  and 
these  pass  under  the  yards  by  tunnel. 

As  the  railroad  lines  converge  towards  the  center  of  the  City 
and  towards  the  downtown  terminals,  the  greater  becomes  the  in- 
tensity and  importance  of  the  effect  of  the  conditions  discussed  above. 
These  lines — coming  closer  together- — consequently  have  their  yards 
and  terminals  closer  together  until,  in  the  center  of  the  City,  we  find 
the  business  heart  completely  surrounded  by  railroad  yards  and  ter- 
minals.* 


*F.  A.  Delano,  in  "Political  Economy,"  Vol.  XXI,  No.  9,  November, 
1913,  writes: 

"In  spite  of  the  apparent  chaos,  a  study  of  the  question  develops  the 
fact  that,  on  the  whole,   the  arrangement  is  more  orderly  than  was  at  first 

22 


The  central  business  district,  represented  by  the  area  south  of 
the  main  Chicago  River,  north  of  Twelfth  Street  and  between  the 
south  branch  of  the  River  and  Lake  Michigan,  is  substantially  one 
mile  square.  It  is  not  only  hemmed  in  on  all  sides  by  railway  freight 
and  passenger  terminals,  but  is  penetrated  for  about  half  of  this  dis- 
tance by  terminal  approaches  from  the  south. 

Only  the  area  north  of"  Van  Buren  Street  and  about  a  quarter 
of  a  mile  square  is  really  free  from  railway  occupation  and  within  this 
area  are  crowded  the  active  centers  of  the  financial,  retail  and  whole- 
sale business;  the  public  buildings  of  the  National  Government,  the 
City  and  the  County;  the  State  and  Federal  Courts;  the  principal 
hotels  and  the  great  office  buildings.  Within  this  narrow  limit  the 
street  and  elevated  railways  focus  the  greater  portion  of  their  traffic. 

Although  this  district  is  now  less  than  half  built  up  with  modern 
commercial  buildings,  the  conditions  of  traffic  on  the  streets  con- 
stitutes a  serious  obstacle  to  business  and  to  the  further  development 
of  the  commerce  of  the  city. 

The  railway  terminal  holdings  in  this  district  are  largely  respon- 
sible for  this  congestion ;  first,  because  they  prevent  expansion,  and, 
second,  because  they  concentrate  the  greater  portion  of  their  own 
traffic  within  these  narrow  limits. 

In  their  discussion  of  the  terminal  question,  the  officers  of  the 
Chicago  Plan  Commission  showed  that  the  streets  serving  as  ap- 
proach to  this  business  district  were  totally  inadequate.  While  there 
are  nine  north  and  south  streets  entering  the  central  district  from 
the  north,  the  approaches  from  the  south  are  limited  to  four,  one  of 
which — Alichigan  Boulevard^ — is  not  open  to  heavy  traffic  and  an- 
other— Clark  Street — has  been  narrowed  by  encroachments  and  its 
use  considerably  restricted  by  the  grades  due  to  the  viaducts  over 
railroad  tracks. 

North  of  Van  Buren  Street  there  are  eight  east  and  west  streets 
running  continuously  through  the  business  district.  South  of  Van 
Buren  Street — and  from  there  to  Twelfth  Street — there  is  really  only 


suspected,  and  that  the  twenty-three  railway  lines  approaching  Chicago  group 
themselves,  as  they  approach  the  heart  of  the  City,  into  seven  well-defined 
arteries.  Between  these  main  railway  arteries  is  a  network  of  streets,  some 
of  them  carrying  an  enormous  volume  of  traffic  which  converge  into  a  con- 
stricted  business   district. 

"That  the  main  features  of  this  anatomy  are  intimately  inter-related,  no 
one  can  deny;  and,  while  the  main  railway  and  street  arteries  cannot  be  greatly 
altered,  there  are  undoubtedly  opportunities  to  modify  and  supplement  them. 

"Diagrammatically,  the  relations  of  the  North  and  South  Sides  of  Chicago 
might  be  likened  to  the  two  halves  of  an  hour  glass  joined  by  the  central  and 
constricted  neck;  on  one  side  might  be  shown  the  neck,  on  the  other,  adjacent 
but  detached,  the  West  Side,  the  greatest  both  in  area  and  in  population  of  the 
city's   three  sections." 

23 


one  east  and  west  street  that  is  continuous — Harrison  Street.  All 
the  other  east  and  west  streets  in  this  section  are  closed  or  obstructed 
either  by  railroad  tracks  and  freight  houses  or  by  a  high  wall  as  on 
Polk  and  Taylor  Streets  at  Fifth  Avenue. 

The  street  conditions  in  the  area  just  to  the  south  of  the  central 
district — i.  e.,  south  of  Twelfth  Street — are  equally  bad.  From 
Twelfth  Street  to  Twenty-second  Street  there  is  only  one  continuous 
east  and  west  street  and  only  four  north  and  south  streets,  one  of 
which  is  obstructed. 

Not  only  is  the  River  an  obstacle  to  the  free  development  of  the 
b-usiness  district  toward  the  north  and  west,  but  the  location  of 
important  railway  terminals  along  the  River  has  increased  this  ob- 
stacle, especially  towards  the  west.  While  some  east  and  west  thor- 
oughfares are  extended  through  these  terminals,  the  superficial  char- 
acter of  the  occupation  of  these  areas  by  railroad  tracks  and  low 
freight  houses  necessarily  breaks  the  continuity  of  commercial  devel- 
opment. ' 

By  unduly  confining  the  areas  within  which  business  is  con- 
ducted and  adequate  transportation  facilities  afforded,  the  railroads 
are  injuring  themselves  as  well  as  the  City.  The  railroads  of  Chi- 
cago do  furnish  extensive  facilities  throughout  the  entire  terminal 
area,  but  these  facilities  are  not  now  properly  correlated.  With  not- 
able exceptions  they  are  operated  so  as  to  increase  rather  than  dimin- 
ish the  central  congestion.* 

It  is  realized  that  in  bringing  about  better  conditions — both  in 
the  central  sections  of  the  City  and  in  the  outlying  districts  and  also 
in  the  areas  which  will  in  the  future  be  incorporated  into  the  City — 
other  means  will  have  to  be  found  which  will  be  simpler  and  more 
practicable  than  the  complete  rearrangement  and  unification  of  the 
railroad  entrances. 


*Mr.  F.  A.  Delano,  in  "Political  Economy,"  Vol.  XXI,  No.  9,  November, 
1913,  writes: 

"Obviously,  one  of  the  major  problems  of  the  Chicago  Plan  was  to  enlarge 
the  passageway  between  the  North  and  South  Sides  through  the  business  dis- 
trict, and  at  the  same  time  bring  the  West  Side  into  closer  and  more  vital 
connection.  The  way  the  Plan  proposed  to  accomplish  this  has  been,  perhaps, 
sufficiently  illustrated,  but  its  five  principles  may  be  here  mentioned  for  con- 
venience: 

1 — Enlarging  the  business  area  by  pushing  the  railway  stations  south  to 

Twelfth    Street; 
2 — Straightening  the   river   so   as  to   open  at  least  three   new  north   and 

south   streets; 
3 — Widening    Twelfth    Street    and    creating   a    wide    Congress    Street,    to 
bring  the  West  Side  into  closer  and  more  intimate  connection  with 
the  city's  heart; 
A — Widening  Halsted  Street — the  principal  west  side  street — and  making 

it  one  side   of  the  city's  inner  quadrangle; 
5 — Establishing  the  city's  future  civic  center  on  the  West  Side. 

24 


It  is  exceedingly  desirable  that  outlying  centers  of  business 
should  be  built  up  independently  of  the  central  business  district;  but 
it  is  inevitable  that  there  shall  be  one  principal  business  center  in 
every  city.  There  is  a  sound  and  compelling  reason  for  the  fact 
that  in  every  successful  City  there  is  one  principal  center  of  trade 
and  commerce.  Any  attempt  to  break  up  and  scatter  the  business 
which  naturally  should  be  brought  together  within  this  district,  and 
which  cannot  be  so  economically  or  efficiently  conducted  if  it  is  not 
concentrated  at  one  point,  can  only  result  in  impairing  the  commer- 
cial prosperity  of  the  City.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  directly  con- 
trary to  the  public  interests  and  to  the  railroad  interests  to  con- 
centrate in  the  central  business  district  any  business  or  traffic  that 
can  be  as  well  or  better  conducted  in  other  sections  of  the  City. 

It  is  the  part  of  wisdom — both  for  the  city  itself  and  for  the  rail- 
roads whose  interests  are  identified  with  the  interests  of  the  city — to 
provide  for  the  normal  and  healthful  development,  not  only  of  the 
principal  business  center,  but  also  of  the  larger  terminal  area  of  each 
metropolitan  community. 

PRESENT  METHODS  OF  HANDLING  MERCHANDISE 

FREIGHT. 

The  central  railroad  terminal  district  of  Chicago  may  be  taken 
to  include  all  that  territory  east  of  Desplaines  Street  and  between 
Eighteenth  Street  and  Chicago  Avenue — an  area  of  less  than  four 
miles  square.  In  this  territory  there  are  located  fifty-seven  freight 
houses  for  inbound  and  outbound  merchandise  (L.  C.  L.)  freight, 
through  which  is  handled  daily  84%  of  the  total  merchandise  L.  C.  L. 
freight  of  the  city.* 

From  information  furnished  by  the  railroads,  it  appears  that 
about  10,000  tons  of  L.  C.  L.  freight  originating  in  Chicago  is  shipped 
out  each  day.  Of  this  freight  3,000  tons  are  received  in  trap  cars  from 
industry  sidings  and  7,000  tons  are  received  at  the  outbound  houses 
by  team,  tunnel  and  lighter.  The  greater  portion  of  the  trap  car 
freight  is  brought  from  the  industry  sidings  into  the  congested  dis- 
tricts and  is  there  sorted  and  loaded  by  the  railroads  into  schedule 
cars. 

In  addition  to  the  10,000  tons  of  L.  C.  L.  outbound  freight  which 
originates  in  the  City,  the  railroads  of  Chicago  daily  bring  into  their 
inbound  freight  houses  approximately  10,000  tons  of  L.  C.  L.  freight, 
of  which  5,000  tons  is  transferred  to  the  outbound  houses  of  other 


*See   Exhibit  "I"  for  list  of  principal   freight  and  passenger  stations  in 
Chicago. 

25 


railroads.  Of  this  transfer,  45  per  cent  is  made  by  team,  to  the 
added  congestion  of  the  streets  in  the  central  terminal  district.* 

In  the  very  center  of  the  City — in  the  narrow  district  lying  be- 
tween Harrison  Street  and  Sixteenth  Street  and  between  State  Street 
and  the  Chicago  River — are  located  the  freight  terminals  of  twelve 
railroads,  at  which  are  handled  daily  4,700  tons  of  inbound  L.  C.  L. 
freight,  of  which  1,350  tons  are  transferred  to  other  railroads.** 

These  same  stations  handle  daily  about  4,800  tons  of  outbound 
L.  C.  L.  freight,  of  which  2,200  tons  are  received  from  other  roads. 

The  average  daily  number  of  freight  cars — both  inbound  and  out- 
bound— is  1,425,  while  the  car  standing  capacity  of  the  inbound  and 
outbound  houses  at  any  one  time  is  1,270  cars. 

If  all  the  transfer  and  trap  car  freight  were  eliminated  from 
these  terminals,  it  would  mean — on  a  basis  of  present  business- — a  re- 
duction of  nearly  40  per  cent  in  the  tonnage  ofl  freight  necessarily 
handled  in  these  terminals,  and  a  still  further  reduction  in  the  re- 
quired car  standing  capacity,  because  this  transfer  and  trap  car  busi- 
ness requires  double  the  car  standing  capacity  that  is  required  for 
the  straight  city  freight — qualified,  however,  to  the  relatively  small 
extent  to  which  it  is  possible  to  use  for  outbound  loading  the  car  in 
which  the  transfer  freight  is  received. 

The  reduction  of  40  per  cent  in  freight  tonnage  mentioned  above 
would  provide  for  the  natural  growth  of  business  for  a  considerable 
period  of  years,  and  if  accompanied  by  the  proper  co-operative  use 
of  terminals,  would  permit  the  sale  of  much  valuable  property  now 
superficially  used  for  terminal  purposes. 

PRESENT    SUPERFICIAL    USE    OF    TERMINAL    PROP- 
ERTIES. 

The  need  for  more  intensive  development  of  railroad  freight 
terminal  property  has  become  quite  apparent  to  those  who  have  given 
serious   consideration   to   the   subject.     Railroad   ofificials   have   been 


*William  H.  Lyford,  in  testimony  presented  to  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  at  a  recent  hearing  in  Chicago,  gives  the  following  facts  relative 
to  the  average  daily  L.  C.  L.  business  in  Chicago: 

"The  Chicago  railroads  daily  bring  into  this  City  10,000  tons  of  L.  C.  L. 
freight  and  take  out  16,000  tons.  Of  the  inbound  freight  only  40  per  cent  is 
delivered  to  the  consignees  by  the  inbound  road.  The  remaining  60  per  cent, 
or  6,000  tons,  is  taken  out  of  the  inbound  cars  at  the  terminal  station  of 
the  road  on  which  it  arrives,  and  is  transferred  to  the  terminal  stations  of 
other  roads;  and  24.8  per  cent  of  this  transfer  is  made  by  teams,  68.6  per  cent 
by  trap  cars  and  6.6  per  cent  by  tunnel." 

**A.   T.    &    S.   Fe.      Grand  Trunk         C.  &   E.  Pere    Marquette 

Rock    Island  C.    &    E.    I.  Nickle  Plate  Monon 

B.  &  O.  Lake   Shore  C.    G.    W.  Wabash 

26 


brought  to  realize  the  value  of  this  intensive  development  when  they 
are  confronted  with  the  necessity  of  securing  additional  real  estate  in 
the  congested  business  districts  of  the  City  where  land  values  are 
high. 

It  should  be  equally  apparent  that  the  limited  use  to  which  valu- 
able real  estate  is  put  is  just  as  much  an  unnecesary  expense  as  would 
be  an  expenditure  for  additional  unnecessary  property.  Exactly  to 
the  extent  that  real  estate  of  this  character  is  unnecssarily  held  out  of 
commercial  use  by  the  railroad,  is  the  potential  freight  producing 
capacity  of  the  areas  adjacent  to  their  terminals  reduced,  and  this 
injurious  effect  is  increased  to  the  extent  that  the  superficial  and  unat- 
tractive improvement  of  their  own  property  deters  the  elTective  de- 
velopment of  adjacent  property. 

CHICAGO   RIVER  STRAIGHTENING. 

The  straightening  of  the  Chicago  River  is — in  many  respects — the 
most  important  single  step  that  can  be  taken  for  the  improvement 
of  the  central  terminal  area.  The  proposal — for  which  a  certain 
amount  of  co-operation  has  already  been  assured^is  for  a  direct  chan- 
nel between  Polk  Street  and  Dodge  Street,  which  would  permit  the 
extension  of  Franklin  Street  and  streets  east  of  Franklin  as  north 
and  south  thoroughfares. 

Practically  all  of  the  property  involved  is  already  owned  by  the 
railroads.  The  present  curve  or  bend  in  the  River  channel  south  of 
Twelfth  Street  makes  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  properly  develop  the 
land  lying  between  Dodge  Street  and  the  River.  By  straightening 
the  River  this  land  and  the  land  lying  between  Clark  Street  and  the 
present  river  channel  would  be  capable  of  harmonious  development 
along  normal  rectangular  lines. 

On  account  of  its  more  direct  course,  the  straightened  river 
would  occupy  194,000  square  feet  less  than  is  now  occupied  by  the 
present  river  channel,  thus  creating  an  addition  to  the  available  areas 
in  this  district  of  approximately  4>4  acres.  The  value  of  this  addi- 
tional acreage  would  probably  be  more  than  suflficient  to  pay  for  the 
actual  construction  work  of  straightening  the  river,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  increase  of  values  due  to  making  property  which  now  lies 
west  of  the  River  available  for  the  central  business  district. 

The  present  area  lying  between  Clark  Street  and  the  east  bank 
of  the  Chicago  River  amounts  to  about  870,000  square  feet,  but  it 
is  narrowed  down  at  its  center  to  a  little  more  than  100  feet  in  width. 
With  the  river  straightened,  there  would  be  available  between  Clark 
Street  and  the  River  a  tract  of  land  over  1,000  feet  wide  and  over 

27 


2,600  feet  long,  containing  2,600,000  square  feet,  which  is  an  area 
considerably  in  excess  of  the  combined  areas  occupied  for  freight 
facilities  today  by  all  of  the  railroads  north  of  Sixteenth  Street  or 
between  the  river  and  State  Street. 

With  proper  co-operation  between  the  railroads  of  this  district,  it 
should  be  possible  to  develop  in  this  teritory  between  Clark  Street 
and  the  straightened  river,  amply  sufficient  facilities  to  provide  for 
the  present  needs  and  probable  future  requirements  of  all  the  rail- 
roads in  this  district,  thereby  releasing  for  commercial  use  all — or 
certainly  the  greater  portion — of  the  property  now  held  by  railroads 
between  Clark  Street  and  State  Street. 

It  would  then  be  possible,  also,  to  open  through  this  terminal 
territory  all — or  practically  all — of  the  north  and  south  streets  with- 
out interfering  with  the  use  of  the  property  for  railroad  purposes. 

The  adjustment  of  the  plane  of  these  streets  to  meet  the  plane 
of  the  viaducts  or  bridges  across  the  river  would  place  the  streets 
sufficiently  high  to  permit  of  railroad  operation  beneath  them,  with- 
out placing  the  railroad  tracks  at  too  low  an  elevation. 

In  the  tentative  plans  which  are  submitted  herewith,  alternative' 
propositions  have  been  developed  showing  various  possibilities  of  re- 
adjusting the  freight  terminals  in  this  district  on  the  basis  of  the 
two  level  plan  for  freight  handling  with  warehouse  operation. 

In  all  these  plans  the  effort  has  been  made  to  secure  the  elimi- 
nation of  present  railroad  grade  crossings  and  the  opening  up  of 
streets  for  uninterrupted  traffic  without  interference  with  railroad 
development. 

SUMMARY  OF  GENERAL  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

In  the  interests  of  the  City,  the  railroads,  the  shippers  and  the 
general  public,  the  railroad  terminals  now  existing  in  the  congested 
area  bounded  by  the  Lake  on  the  east,  Chicago  Avenue  on  the 
north,  Desplaines  Street  on  the  west  and  Sixteenth  Street  on  the 
south,  should  be  readjusted  and  simplified  by  combination  and  co- 
operation. 

The  through  passenger  service  of  all  the  railroads  now  using 
terminals  in  that  portion  of  the  congested  area  above  described, 
which  lies  east  of  the  south  branch  of  the  Chicago  River,  should  be 
combined  in  one — or  two — Union  Passenger  Stations,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  such  of  these  roads  as  can  properly  be  taken  into  the  new 
Canal  Street  Union  Station  west  of  the  River 

Advantage  should  be  taken  of  the  substantial  opportunities 
which  now  exist  for  the  practical  application  of  the  through  routing 


principle  to  Chicag-o  suburban  service.  These  opportunities  would 
be  increased  by  certain  changes  which  are  easily  practicable. 

The  present  extensive  and  superficially  spread  out  competitive 
freight  terminals  within  the  congested  area — bounded  as  above  de- 
scribed— should  be  regrouped  and  simplified.  The  Commission  is 
gratified  to  be  able  to  report  that  it  has  found — on  the  part  of  a  num- 
ber of  influential  railroad  officials — a  distinctly  favorable  disposition 
toward  this  suggestion  and  a  willingness  to  assist  in  the  working  out 
of  practicable  plans  to  carry  it  into  eflfect. 

The  Commission  has  been  preparing  a  number  of  tentative  alter- 
native plans  to  this  end,  to  be  used  as  a  basis  of  discussion  and  study. 
It  presents  a  number  of  such  plans  herewith,  with  accompanying  ex- 
planations of  their  character  and  effect. 

The  south  branch  of  the  Chicago  River  should  be  straightened 
so  that  La  Salle  Street,  Fifth  Avenue  and  Franklin  Street  can  be 
extended  through  as  continuous  north  and  south  thoroughfares,  and 
so  that  railroad  properties  now  cut  off  by  the  river  and  only  super- 
ficially used,  can  be  made  available  for  intensive  development. 

Provision  for  river-straightening  was  made  in  the  Canal  Street 
Union  Station  ordinance,  and  the  Commission  has  secured  assent  to 
substantially  similar  provisions  in  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Chicago 
Terminal  Railroad  ordinance,  passed  February  19,  1915,  and  in  the 
pending  ordinances  relating  to  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  Rail- 
road. Other  railroads— whose  interests  would  be  affected — have  also 
indicated  to  the  Commission  their  willingness  to  co-operate  in  some 
practicable  plan  of  river  straightening. 

The  Commission  has  prepared  certain  tentative  plans  showing 
the  river  straightened  and  how  the  property  then  thrown  east  of  the 
south  branch  of  the  River  can  be  utilized  to  the  joint  advantage  of 
the  railroads  and  the  public. 

No  carload  freight  should  be  handled  within  the  congested  area — 
bounded  as  above — except  that  which  is  intended  for  consumption  or 
use  within  the  district.  All  other  carload  freight  should  be  inter- 
changed, transferred  or  delivered  by  co-operative  methods,  agencies 
and  facilities  outside  of  this  district,  such  as  those  already  adopted  at 
Clearing  by  twelve  of  the  Chicago  railroads,  operating  fifteen  trunk 
lines. 

The  Clearing  Yard  is  located  between  Seventy-third  and  Central 
Park  Avenues,  and  between  Sixty-seventh  and  Seventy-third  Streets, 
and  is  connected  with  both  the  inner  and  the  outer  Belt  Railway  Sys- 
tems at  the  nearest  point  of  approach  of  these  systems  to  each  other. 

29 


Both   eastern  and   western  railways  co-operate  with   each  other  at 
Clearing;  but  at  present  only  carload  freight  is  handled  there. 

Here — or  at  similar  co-operative  yards — should  be  interchanged 
all  carload  freight  which  it  is  not  essentially  necessary  to  handle 
within  the  congested  area. 

Less  than  carload  (L.  C.  L.)  freight  should  be  interchanged  or 
transferred — as  far  as  practicable — on  general  principles  substantially 
similar  to  those  applied  at  Clearing  to  the  carload  freight. 

It  is  apparent  that — to  the  extent  that  this  interchange  or  trans- 
fer can  be  accomplished  at  one  or  more  points  outside  of  the  con- 
gested area  of  the  city — a  distinct  public  benefit  will  be  conferred, 
and  the  railroads  themselves  will  probably  be  financially  benefited. 

Outbound  L.  C.  ■  L.  freight  should  not — as  a  general  rule — be 
sorted  or  loaded  to  destination  at  the  freight  terminals  within  the  con- 
gested area.  No  outbound  L.  C.  L.  freight  which  had  been  loaded 
into  trap  cars  on  private  sidings  should  be  brought  into  this  congested 
area,  but  should  be  taken  directly  from  the  point  of  origin  to  an  out- 
lying station  or  yard,  where  it  will  be  transferred  as  may  be  necessary. 
Outbound  L.  C.  L.  freight  brought  by  teams  or  trucks  to  freight 
stations  or  team  tracks  within  the  congested  area  should  be  un- 
loaded as  directly  as  practicable  from  the  vehicles  into  trap  cars  and 
should  be  taken  in  these  trap  cars  directly  to  outlying  clearing  sta- 
tions or  yards,  there  to  be  transferred  as  may  be  necessary.  What — 
if  any — exceptions  should  be  made  with  respect  to  specially  expedited 
freight  depends  upon  operating  conditions  and  developments. 

Outlying  L.  C.  L.  clearing  stations  or  yards  should  be  estab- 
lished and  operated  by  roads  which  do  not  already  have  them ;  and 
the  co-operative  or  union  principle  should  be  applied  and  extended 
as  rapidly  as  experience  justifies  and  opportunity  permits. 

This  Commission  is  not  now  prepared  to  say  that  the  larger 
railroad  systems  may  not  find  it  advantageous  to  operate  individual 
clearing  station  yards  of  their  own  or  that  one  joint  station  or  clear- 
ing yard  may  be  found  as  efficient  as  two  or  more. 

It  may  be  that  there  should  be  three  union  co-operative  clearing 
stations  or  yards,  located  in  dififerent  sections  of  the  outlying  terri- 
tory of  Chicago  and  devoted  to  freight  destined  west  and  northwest, 
south  and  southwest,  east  and  southeast,  the  sections  into  which  the 
entire  railroad  system — when  considered  in  relation  to  Chicago — nat- 
urally subdivides  the  country. 

Universal  freight  stations  should  be  established  at  appropriate 
points  in  the  central   terminal   area,   in   sufficient   number  to  afford 

30 


convenient  opportunity  for  the  shippers  in  the  respective  sections  of 
this  area  to  deliver  at  a  single  station  L.  C.  L.  freight  destined  to 
different  roads,  or  at  least  to  any  of  the  roads  within  one  of  the  above 
mentioned  groups. 

The  freight  received  at  such  universal  stations  should  be  taken 
to  the  outlying  clearing  station  or  yard  of  all  the  roads,  or  of  the 
roads  of  one  of  these  groups — depending  on  the  system — and  then 
this  freight  should  be  sorted,  transferred  and  loaded  to  destination. 

In  the  event — but  only  in  the  event — that  this  service  is  found 
to  involve  extra  expense  to  the  railroads  over  the  cost  to  them  of 
handling  freight  teamed  to  their  respective  individual  receiving  sta- 
tions, the  shipper  utilizing  these  universal  stations  should  pay  an 
appropriate  charge  for  the  privilege  which  enables  him, to  reduce  the 
cost  and  the  delays  of  teaming. 

It  is  not  suggested  at  this  time  that  all  the  railroads  should  im- 
mediately adopt  the  universal  freight  station  system,  or  that  each 
railroad  should  convert  all  of  its  existing  freight  stations  into  uni- 
versal stations.  But  it  is  believed  that  a  sufficient  beginning  should 
be  made  on  the  universal  freight  station  plan  to  give  that  plan  a  fair 
and  adequate  trial,  and  under  circumstances  which  will  permit  of  its 
extension  to  the  extent  that  this  is   justified  by  experience. 

The  Commission  is  confident  that  experience  will  demonstrate 
the  practical  value  of  the  Universal  Freight  House  System,  both  to 
the  railroad  and  the  public. 

In  the  plans  prepared  by  this  Commission,  as  tentative  studies 
of  the  terminal  situation,  locations  have  been  indicated  for  new 
universal  freight  houses  by  way  of  suggesting  where  such  houses  be 
located.  In  actually  working  out  the  problems,  other  locations  may 
be  found  more  suitable  or  more  available.  The  Commission  has 
been  gratified  to  find  that  the  Universal  freight  house  principle  is 
being  given  friendly  consideration  by  Chicago  railroad  men,  and  it 
confidently  hopes  for  the  inauguration  of  this  principle  in  the  near 
future. 

None  of  the  plans  herewith  submitted  is  intended  to  represent 
the  matured  judgment  of  the  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commis- 
sion. The  sole  purpose  of  all  that  is  here  presented  is  to  report 
progress  toward  the  solution  of  the  railway  terminal  problem  and 
to  indicate  some  of  the  practical  steps  that  may  lead  further  in  this 
direction. 

Acknowledgment  is  due  to  the  assistance  rendered  the  Com- 
mission in  the  study  of  the  terminal  situation  and  the  preparation  of 

31 


this  report  by  Edward  J.  Noonan,  Secretary  and  Principal  Engineer, 
and  his  staff,  Donald  B.  Rush,  Frank  E.  Collins,  and  Ralph  J,  Hinkle. 

Respectfully  submitted, 


CUXCAGO  RAILWAY  TERMINAL   COMmsSION 


Chairman. 


Chicago,  March  24,  1915. 


32 


EXHIBIT  I 

PRESENT  TERMINAL  FACILITIES 

IN  THE 
CITY  OF  CHICAGO 


EXHIBIT  I 

PRESENT  TERMINAL  FACILITIES 

IN  THE 
CITY  OF  CHICAGO 

The  railway  approaches  to  the  City  of  Chicago  are  along  seven 
different  routes,  as  follows : 

1 — The  Illinois  Central  right-of-way  along  the  Lake  Front; 

2 — The  Lake  Shore-Rock  Island  right-of-way,  parallel  to  Clark 
Street ; 

3 — The  Pennsylvania-Western  Indiana  right-of-way  between 
Stewart  Avenue  and  Canal  Street ; 

4 — The  Illinois  Central-Santa  Fe-Alton  right-of-way  parallel 
to  Archer  Avenue ; 

5 — The  Burlington-Northwestern-Baltimore  &  Ohio  right-of- 
•  way  parallel  to  Sixteenth  Street; 

6 — The  St.  Paul-Pan  Handle-Northwestern  right-of-way  par- 
allel to  Kinzie  Street ; 

7 — The  Northwestern  right-of-way  parallel  to  Milwaukee 
Avenue. 

Of  these  seven,  four  are  east  and  south  of  the  River,  while  three 
are  north  and  west  of  the  River. 

There  are — at  the  present  time — six  railway  passenger  terminals 
in  the  City,  namely: 

Northwestern  Station, 
Union  Station, 
La   Salle   Street   Station, 
Grand  Central  Station, 
Dearborn  Station, 
Central  Station. 


33 


These  stations  accomodate  railroads  as  follows : 
NORTHWESTERN  : ....  1  road :      Chicago  &  Northwestern ; 


UNION 


5  roads 


LA  SALLE : 4  roads 


GRAND  CENTRAL: 


5  roads: 


DEARBORN : 8  roads 


Chicago  &  Alton, 
Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy, 
Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul, 
Pittsburgh,   Cincinnati,   Chicago  & 

St.  Louis, 
Pittsburgh,  Ft.  Wayne  &  Chicago 

Chicago,   Indiana   &   Southern, 
Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific, 
Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern, 
New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio, 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Chicago  Ter- 
minal, 

Chicago  Great  Western, 

Pere  Marquette, 

Minneapolis,  St.  Paul  &  Sault  Ste. 
Marie. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe,     , 
Chesapeake  &  Ohio, 
Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois, 

Chicago  &  Erie, 

Chicago  &  Western  Indiana. 

Chicago,  Indianapolis  &  Louis\^ille, 

Grand  Trunk, 

Wabash. 

Cleveland,    Cincinnati,    Chicago    & 

St.   Louis, 
Michigan  Central, 
Illinois  Central. 

TOTAL : 26  roads. 

The  Northwestern  Station,  occupying  the  entire  block  between 
Canal  and  Clinton  Streets,  fronting  on  Madison  Street,  is  a  new 
structure,  costing  $25,000,000.  and  should  meet  the  requirements  of 
through  traffic  for  many  years.  There  are  16  stub  tracks  and  6  main 
line  elevated  approach  tracks. 

The  Union  Station,  fronting  west  on  Canal  Street,  between 
Monroe  and  Adams  Streets,  opened  April  4,  1881,  was  designed  as  a 
through  station,  but  used  as  a  double  stub  station.  The  traffic  of  its 
roads  has  entire  outgrown  the  capacity  of  this  station. 

The  La  Salle  Street  Station,  fronting  north  on  Van  Buren  Street, 
occupies  the  entire  blpck  between  Sherman  and  La  Salle  Streets,  and 


CENTRAL: 3  roads: 


34 


was  opened  July  1,  1903.    There  are  eleven  stub  tracks  and  four  ap- 
proach tracks. 

-  Grand  Central  Station,  fronting  north  on  Harrison  Street,  opened 
December  10,  1890,  having  eight  stub  tracks  and  two  approach  tracks. 

Dearborn  Station,  fronting  north  on  Polk  Street,  occupies  the 
entire  block  between  Federal  Street  and  Plymouth  Court,  opened 
May  8,  1885,  consists  of  ten  stub  tracks  and  four  approach  tracks. 
This  is  the  most  congested  of  all  stations. 

Central  Station,  fronting  on  Grant  Park,  was  opened  April  17, 
1893,  The  train  shed  has  six  tracks,  with  two  approach  tracks  at  the 
south  end,  a  connection  with  the  St.  Charles  Air  Line  and  two 
switching  leads  at  the  north  end.  Under  agreement  with  the  South 
Park  Commissioners,  this  station  is  to  be  torn  down  and  the  site 
vacated  for  park  purposes. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  of  the  five  older  passenger  stations  now 
in  use,  the  Union  Station,  Central  and  Dearborn  Stations  must  soon 
be  replaced.  The  La  Salle  Street  Station  will  undoubtedly  require 
enlarging  or  replacing  within  the  next  ten  years,  The  Grand  Central 
Station  is  badly  located  and  of  small  capacity — though  well  arranged. 

The  Union  Station  Company — under  the  terms  of  the  ordinance 
passed  March  23rd,  1914 — is  about  ready  to  begin  work  on  a  much 
larger  passenger  terminal  located  on  Canal  Street  upon  substantially 
the  same  site  as  to  train  shed  and  track  that  it  now  occupies. 

The  Illinois  Central — owning  the  Central  Station — has  under  con- 
sideration a  greatly  enlarged  passenger  terminal  located  at  Twelfth 
Street  and  the  Lake  Front,  of  sufficient  capacity  to  take  care  of  all 
the  railroads  on  the  south  side  of  the  City  now  using  stations  east  of 
che  Chicago  River. 

The  freight  houses  and  team  tracks  of  the  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  RJ., 
C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R.,  C.  &  E.  R.  R.,  C.  I.  &  L.  Ry.,  G.  T.  W.,  and  Wabash 
Railroad,  are  located  between  Clark  Street  and  State  Street,  and  ex- 
tend from  Fifteenth  Street  to  Taylor  Street;  the  approach  to  all  of 
these  freight  houses  being  from  the^  south  by  way  of  the  tracks  of 
the  C.  &  W.  I.  R.  R.,  except  in  the  case  of  the  Santa  Fe,  which  has 
an  independent  approach  parallel  to  the  western  line  of  the  Illinois 
Central. 

The  freight  house  and  team  tracks  of  the  L.  S.  &  M.  S.,  Nickle 
Plate,  and  C.  R.  I.  &  P.  are  located  between  Clark  Street  and  Fifth 
Avenue,  and  extend  from  Twelfth  Street  to  Polk  Street,  the  approach 
being  by  the  joint  L.  S.  &  M.  S.,  and  C.  R.  I.  &  P.  tracks. 

The  freight  houses  of  the  B.  &  O.  Railroad,  C.  G.  W.  R.  R.,  and 
P.  M.  R.  R.,  are  located  between  Fifth  Avenue  and  the  South  Branch 

35 


of  the  Chicago  River,  and  extend  from  Taylor  Street  to  Harrison 
Street,  the  approach  being  by  the  tracks  of  the  B.  &  O.  R.  R.,  which 
extends  parallel  to  Sixteenth  Street  and  crosses  the  River  just  south 
of  Taylor  Street;  the  team  tracks  of  these  railroads  being  on  B.  & 
O.  land  west  of  the  River  and  south  of  Twelfth  Street. 

The  freight  houses  and  team  tracks  of  the  Burlington  Railroad 
are  located  west  of  the  River,  between  Canal  Street  and  Stewart  Ave- 
nue, and  extend  from  Twelfth  Street  to  Harrison  Street.  The  Bur- 
lington also  has  freight  houses,  together  with  the  St.  Paul  and  North- 
Western,  in  the  vicinity  of  Sixteenth  Street,  exending  from  Union 
Street  to  Canal  Street. 

The  Fort  Wayne  and  xA.lton  freight  facilites  are  located  between 
the  River  and  Canal  Street  and  extend  from  Harrison  Street  to  Madi- 
son Street.  Under  the  Union  Station  ordinance  the  freight  facilities 
of  the  Burlington,  Fort  Wayne  and  Alton  will  be  rearranged  in  the 
territory  between  Canal  Street  and  the  River,  so  that  they  will  not 
extend  further  north  than  Polk  Street, 

The  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  and  the  Pan  Handle  have  their  freight  facili- 
ties between  Fulton  Street  and  Kinzie  Street,  extending  from  Des- 
plaines  Street  to  the  north  branch  of  the  Chicago  River. 

The  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  R.  has  freight  facilities  adjacent  to  the  west 
bank  of  the  north  branch  of  the  Chicago  River  in  the  vicinity  of 
Kinzie  Street  and  also  along  the  north  side  of  the  main  channel  of  the 
Chicago  River,  east  of  Dearborn  Street. 

The  freight  houses  and  team  tracks  of  the  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road are  located  on  the  lake  shore  north  of  Randolph  Street  and  ex- 
tend to  the  Chicago  River. 


ae 


RAILROAD   ROUTE   AND  TERMINAL  MAP 

CHICAGO 

AND  VICINITY 

Office  of  Chicago  Railway  Tcbmikal  Commission    Pte  1915 
Scale 


37 


f  titlNblHiSTTT 

=IIIZZ] 


J  UHUI ^U 

ST 


II       1 

( 

3T 

UUU  U  bU  uu 

"   "JREM 

"1. 


38 


39 


EXHIBIT  No.  II 

REARRANGEMENT 

OF 

PASSENGER  TERMINALS 


EXHIBIT  No.  II 

REARRANGEMENT  OF  PASSENGER  TERMINALS. 

The  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  is  provided  with  a  new 
station  at  Canal  and  Madison  Streets,  which  will  be  sufficient  to  take 
care  of  its  needs  for  some  time  to  come  and — if  its  present  suburban 
service  could  be  eliminated  therefrom — it  would  have  sufficient  facili- 
ties to  provide  for  its  through  passenger  traffic  for  many  years. 

The  passage  of  the  Union  Station  ordinance  and  its  acceptance 
by  the  railroads  provides  terminal  accommodations  for  the  roads  now 
using  the  present  Union  Station  on  Canal  Street  and  sufficient  to  take 
care  of  other  roads  entering  the  City  from  the  west,  which  should 
logically  use  this  station. 

With  the  exception  of  the  roads  in  this  group  which  enter  from 
the  west — and  which  roads  might  logically  be  taken  into  the  Union 
Station — all  of  these  roads  enter  the  same  section  of  the  city  and  it 
would  be  practicable  for  these  roads  to  use  one  common  entrance 
route. 

The  South  Park  Commissioners — acting  under  the  general  laws 
of  the  State  of  Illinois  and  under  the  special  provisions  of  an  Act 
approved  May  4,  1903.  May  2,  1907,  May  25.  1911,  and  June  11,  1912, 
respectively — in  an  agreement  with  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Com- 
pany, March  30,  1912,  and  a  supplemental  agreement  dated  June  26, 
1912,  fixed  the  eastern  boundary  line  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
between  Grant  Park  and  Fifty-first  Street,  and  by  the  same  terms  the 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  relinquished  to  the  South  Park  Board  its 
riparian  rghts  along  the  shore  of  Lake  Michigan  between  the  boun- 
daries noted  above. 

These  agreements  have  been  confirmed  by  the  Courts,  but  they 
cannot  become  practically  eflfective  without  the  passage  by  the  City 
Council  of  ordinances  covering  certain  provisions  in  the  agreements 
referred  to,  and  the  Secretary  of  War  has  indicated  that  the  passage 
of  appropriate  ordinances  by  the  City  providing,  among  other  things, 
for  a  harbor  district  within  the  limits  covered  by  these  agreements, 
would  be  considered  a  condition  precedent  to  the  approval  by  the  War 
Department  of  the  plans  of  the  South  Park  Commissioners. 

Should  the  City,  the  South  Park  Commissioners  and  the  Illinois 
Central  R.ailroad  come  to  an  agreement  under  which  the  City  Council 

40 


would  pass  ordinances  protecting  the  City  and  making  possible  the 
carrying  out  of  the  agreements  referred  to,  the  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road would  come  into  possession  of  lands  which — in  addition  to  their 
present  holdings — would  give  it  an  unusual  site  for  passenger  termi- 
nals. 

This  site,  extending  sputhward  from  Twelfth  Street  over  700 
feet  in  width  for  a  distance  of  2,000  feet,  with  an  extension  600  feet 
in  width  nearly  to  Thirty-first  Street — a  distance  of  about  two  miles — 
with  an  approach  thereto  having  a  capacity  of  20  main  tracks  as  far 
as  Fifty-first  Street  and  15  tracks  beyond,  would  make  an  available 
location  for  the  grouping  of  all  or  most  of  the  through  trains  of  the 
South  Side  roads  in  one  passenger  terminal,  and  the  land  would  be 
sufficient  to  take  care  of  these  railroads  for  an  indefinite  period  in  the 
future. 

The  site  for  the  station  at  the  south  end  of  Grant  Park  affords 
splendid  opportunity  for  architectural  effect,  and  the  broad  right-of- 
way  southward  for  several  miles  along  the  shore  of  the  lake,  with  no 
street  crossings  at  grade,  makes  possible  an  avenue  of  approach  to 
the  City  for  the  passenger  trains  of  the  railways  from  the  east,  the 
south  and  the  southwest  remarkable  in  capacity,  attractiveness  of 
surroundings  and  advantage  of  location. 

As  the  Illinois  Central  is  required  by  its  charter  to  pay  to  the 
State  of  Illinois  seven  per  cent  of  its  gross  revenue,  which  is  over  20 
per  cent  of  its  net  earnings  from  operation,  all  rentals  for  terminals 
received  by  it  will  accrue  to  the  advantage  of  the  citizens  of  Illinois, 
including  Chicago.  As  the  land  set  aside  to  the  Illinois  Central  can 
be  used  only  for  railroad  purposes,  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  not  only  to  favor  but  to  encourage  the  use  of  this  property 
to  the  fullest  extent  compatible  with  other  considerations  of  public 
policy. 

The  low  cost  of  this  property  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
should  make  it  possible  for  this  Company  to  provide  facilities  for 
other  railroads  upon  terms  attractive  to  them. 

It  should  be  possible — in  framing  ordinances — to  provide  some 
means  of  arbitrating  the  question  of  reasonableness  of  charge  made 
by  the  Illinois  Central  to  tenant  companies^in  case  the  railroads 
affected  are  not  able  to  reach  an  amicable  agreement. 

On  the  occasion  of  his  recent  appearance  before  the  City  Council 
Committee  on  Harbors,  Wharves  and  Bridges,  G.  H.  Markham, 
President  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  stated  in  specific  language 
his  willingness  to  accede  to  such  an  arrangement  with  respect  to 
harbor  connections. 

41 


The  plans  for  the  new  station  at  Twelfth  Street  should  provide 
only  for  through  trains.  There  is  ample  room  at  the  Illinois  Central 
site  to  provide  for  30  to  40  tracks  and  still  have  place  for  accommo- 
dating suburban  tracks  along  and  outside  the  station. 

The  accompanying  diagram,  marked  Plate  No.  4,  shows  tenta- 
tively the  routing  of  all  of  the  passenger  trains  of  the  railroads  now 
using  the  Grand  Central,  La  Salle  and  Dearborn  Stations  in  this 
terminal  at  Twelfth  Street  and  the  Lake  Front. 

It  also  shows  the  simplification  of  the  approaches  to  passenger 
terminals  that  would  be  effected  by  this  plan. 

Plate  No.  5  is  a  diagram  showing  tentatively  the  routes  that 
would  be  adopted  if  the  roads  which  enter  from  the  west  and  now 
have  their  terminals  in  the  Grand  Central  and  Dearborn  Stations 
were  taken  into  the  Union  Station  at  Canal  and  Madison  Streets  in- 
stead of  a  station  at  Twelfth  Street  and  the  Lake  Front. 
Suburban  Service. 

The  proper  method  for  arranging  for  the  accommodation  of  the 

uburban  service  of  these  railroads  has  not  been  worked  out,  but 

with  the  co-operation  of  the  railroads  it  should  be  possible  to  work 

out  a  plan  that  would  be  satisfactory  to  them  and  result  in  greater 

,commodation  to  the  public. 

Such  a  plan  might  properly  contemplate  an  underground  rail- 
road connecting  the  terminals  which  would  permit  of  a  direct  inter- 
change of  passenger  equipment  between  these' terminals  and  a  rout- 
ing of  suburban  trains  in  a  manner  that  would  eliminate  the  existing 
.congestion  caused  by  the  present  method  of  operating  the  terminal 
services. 

The  Commission,  however,  has  not  proceeded  sufficiently  in  its 
consideration  oi  this  subject  to  be  able  to  put  forward  a  definite  plan 
for  suburban  through  routing. 


42 


} 

\      \. 

r 

1 

^^^' — >(» 

1      X. 

I ^3 

RAILROAD  route:  AND  TERMINAL  MAP 

CHICAGO 

AND  VICINITY 

Orr'CL  or  Chicaco  Railway  Tcbminal  Comuusion    Pcb  1915 

SCAUt 


Tentati\t  Arrangement 

WITH 

Three  Terminal  Passenger  Stations 

5tation3  retained  mi^m 

to  be  remooe^l  i    --ii 

To  accompany  report  of  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commission 


43 


RAILROAD  ROUTE  AND  TERMINAL  MAP 

CHICAGO 

AND  VICINITY 

Orrtci  or  Chicago  Railway  TtRMirt^L  Commimion    Peb  1915.  _ 
Scale 


Tentative  Arrangement 


Three  Terminal  Passenger  Stations 

ALTERNATIVE  PLAN 

Stations  retained  ^m^ 

to  be  remoued  i         i 

To  accompany  report  of  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  CommiMicn 

Chicago  "'* 


-^ 


44 


ALTERNATIVE     PLAN     FOR     TWO     STATIONS     ON     THE 

SOUTH  SIDE. 

It  may  develop — after  further  consideration  of  the  question  of 
rearrangement  of  passenger  terminals  for  railroads  using  the  stations 
east  of  the  south  branch  of  the  Chicago  River — that  it  will,  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  public  and  the  railroads,  be  found  desirable  to  group 
these  railroads  into  two  stations  rather  than  one  station. 

In  this  event  it  would  be  possible — with  the  Chicago  River 
straightened — to  develop  a  passenger  terminal  on  the  site  now  occu- 
pied by  the  Grand  Central  Station,  sufficient  to  take  care  of  the 
passenger  traffic  of  a  number  of  railroads.  This  development  would 
not  interfere  with  the  southward  growth  of  the  City  and  a  plan 
could  be  worked  out  that  would  permit  of  satisfactory  crossing  for 
all  of  the  east  and  west  streets  intersected. 

If  this  location  were  adopted,  however,  it  would  be  desirable  to 
use  the  existing  rights  of  way  of  the  Rock  Island-Lake  Shore  or 
Western  Indiana  as  a  route  of  entrance.  Such  an  entrance  route 
would  permit  of  a  more  economic  and  satisfactory  layout  and  would 
very  materially  reduce  the  passenger  train  mileage  of  the  railroads 
which  now  use  the  B.  &  O.  C.  T.  tracks  as  an  entrance  to  this 
station. 

A  practical  arrangement  of  routes  contemplating  these  two  sta- 
tions on  the  South  Side  is  shown  in  Plate  No.  6. 


45 


RAILROAD   ROUTE  AND  TERMINAL  MAP 

CHICAGO 

AND  VICINITY 

Omct  or  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commimion    VtB  1915 
Scale 


Tentative  Arr.\ngement 


Four  Terminal  Passenger  Stations 

Stations  retained  ihi^h 

to  be  remoued  i     . — i 

To  accompany  report  of  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commission 


Chicago 


46 


EXHIBIT  No.  Ill 

TENTATIVE    PLANS    FOR    THE 

REARRANGEMENT 

OF 

FREIGHT  TERMINALS 


EXHIBIT  No.  Ill 

TENTATIVE    PLANS   FOR   THE 

REARRANGEMENT 

OF 

FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

In  the  study  of  the  possibilities  of  rearrangement  of  freight 
terminal  facilities  in  the  congested  district,  consideration  has  first 
been  given  to  the  territory  between  the  south  branch  of  the  Chicago 
River  and  State  Street  and  north  of  Eighteenth  Street,  because  the 
terminals  in  this  district  ofifer  the  greatest  obstruction  to  the  natural 
expansion  of  the  central  business  district. 

In  this  territory  are  located  the  principal  inbound  and  outbound 
freight  houses  of  twelve  railroads.*  The  territory  occupied  by  these 
terminals  is  all  on  the  same  level  and  all  the  railroads  enter  the  terri- 
tory at  practically'  the  same  point,  so  that  there  is  little  physical 
obstruction  in  the  way  of  combining  the  facilities  of  these  railroads 
in  one  great  terminal. 

A  situation  is  here  presented  that  would  lend  itself  admirably  to 
the  application  of  the  principal  of  co-operative  operation. 

It  should  be  possible — with  proper  co-operation  among  the  rail- 
roads interested — to  work  out  a  plan  of  development  in  this  territory 
that  would,  while  conserving  the  interests  of  the  railroads,  make 
possible  the  opening  up  of  thoroughfares  and  result  in  a  more  eco- 
nomic use  of  property. 

In  the  tentative  plans  which  are  submitted  herewith,  alternative 
propositions  have  been,  developed  showing  various  possibilities  of 
readjusting  the  freight  terminals  in  this  district  on  the  basis  of  the 
two  level  plan  for  freight  handling  with  warehouse  operation. 

In  all  these  plans  the  effort  has  been  made  to  secure  the  elimina- 
tion of  present  railroad  grade  crossings  and  the  opening  up  of  streets 
for  uninterrupted  traffic  without  interference  with  railroad  develop- 
ment. 

These  plans  are  not  intended  to  represent  the  mature  judgment 
of  the  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commission.     They  are  presented 


*See  Table  17  in  statistical  appendix  for  list  of  these  Railroads  and  the 
average  daily  freight  business  of  each. 

47 


simply  as  a  representation  of  what  might  be  accomplished  through 
co-operative  operation  and  intensive  development.  They  are  pre- 
sented at  this  time  solely  as  a  basis  for  discussion  and  future  con- 
sideration of  the  subject. 

Of  the  accompanying  plans,  Schemes  1,  2,  3  and  4,  shown  in 
Plates  7,  8,  9  and  10,  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  south 
branch  of  the  Chicago  River  will  be  straightened  substantially  alongf 
the  lines  agreed  upon  in  the  Union  Station  ordinance. 

In  Scheme  5,  Plate  11,  is  shown  a  possible  rearrangement  of  the 
terminals  for  more  intensive  use,  with  the  south  branch  of  the  Chi- 
cago River  unchanged. 

All  of  the  plans  are  readily  adaptable  to  the  universal  freight 
house  system. 

Scheme  No.  1 — Shown  on  Plate  No.  7. 

In  Scheme  No.  1  the  Chicago  River  is  shown  straightened ;  the 
present  crossing  of  the  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  and  C,  R.  I.  &  P.  tracks  with  the 
C.  &  W.  I.  at  Sixteenth  and  Clark  Streets  is  maintained,  and  the  St. 
Charles  Air  Line  is  shown  in  practically  the  present  location. 

The  present  bridge  of  the  B.  &  O.  Railroad,  north  of  Twelfth 
Street,  is  removed,  and  the  B.  &  C.  Railroad  is  shown  crossing  the 
river  on  the  same  bridge  with  the  St.  Charles  Air  Line. 

North  and  south,  Dearborn,  Clark,  Sherman,  Fifth  Avenue  and 
Franklin  Streets  are  opened  up  continuously;  east  and  west,  Polk, 
Taylor,  Twelfth,  Fourteenth  and  Sixteenth  Streets  are  shown  opened 
continuously  through  the  terminal  and  across  the  river.  Between 
Dearborn  Street  and  the  River  and  north  of  Sixteenth  Street,  these 
streets  would  be  on  viaduct  at  the  same  level  as  the  river  bridges, 
thus  permitting  occupation  of  the  space  underneath  with  railroad 
tracks.  East  of  Dearborn  and  south  of  Sixteenth  Street  the  street 
grades  would  descend  to  connect  with  existing  street  levels. 

In  this  scheme  railroad  occupation  is  restricted  to  the  territory 
west  of  Dearborn  Street  and  extends  northward  to  Polk  Street,  with 
the  exception  of  the  B.  &  O.  facilities,  which  extend  to  Harrison 
Street.  Freight  houses  are  all  located  north  of  Twelfth  Street,  the 
territory  south  of  Twelfth  Street  being  occupied  with  team  track 
layout.  In  case  the  L.  C.  L.  Clearing  and  Universal  Freight  Houses 
are  adopted,  all  outbound  freight  would  be  loaded  into  cars  at  these 
team  tracks. 

The  capacities  of  this  layout  are: 

Car  standing  capacity ;  house  tracks,  2,800  cars. 
Car  standing  capacity;  team  tracks,  1,290  cars. 

48 


49 


Scheme  No.  2 — Shown  on  Plate  No.  8. 

There  is  considerable  doubt  as  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining 
the  St.  Charles  Air  Line  as  an  avenue  of  interchange  between  the 
railroads  west  of  the  Chicago  River  and  the  railroads  east  of  the 
Chicago  River  and  on  the  Lake  Front. 

The  St.  Charles  Air  Line,  in  addition  to  furnishing  trackage  for 
the  interchange  of  this  transfer  business,  also  furnishes  a  route  of 
entrance  for  the  Chicago,  Madison  &  Northern  Railroad  into  the 
Illinois  Central  Terminal. 

In  the  development  of  the  Illinois  Central  Terminal  south  of 
Twelfth  Street,  it  will  be  found  advantageous  to  provide  for  a  con- 
nection with  the  Chicago,  Madison  &  Northern  further  south  than 
the  existing  St.  Charles  Air  Line  and  various  routes  of  entrance 
have  been  considered  for  this  line  in  this  connection. 

In  Scheme  No.  2,  shown  herewith,  the  St.  Charles  Air  Line  is 
eliminated,  and  the  Chicago,  Madison  &  Northern  is  shown  extend- 
ing parallel  to  and  north  of  Archer  Avenue.  In  this  scheme,  the  Chi- 
cago River  is  shown  straightened ;  the  B.  &  O.  existing  bridge  north  of 
Twelfth  Street  is  removed ;  and  the  crossing  of  the  B.  &  O.  shown 
in  line  with  their  present  holdings  south  of  Fourteenth  Street. 

The  existing  crossing  of  the  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern 
and  Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  with  the  Western  Indiana  tracks 
is  also  eliminated,  and  the  occupation  by  railroad  terminals  is  re- 
stricted to  the  territory  west  of  Clark  Street. 

In  this  arrangement  the  existing  freight  house  locations  west 
of  Clark  Street  and  north  of  Twelfth  Street  are  maintained,  and 
the  possibililties  of  future  locations  in  this  territory  are  shown. 
South  of  Twelfth  Street  the  territory  is  occupied  by  team  tracks,  the 
controlling  principle  in  this  layout  being  that  the  houses  would  only 
be  used  for  inbound  freight  and  that  all  outbound  freight  would  be 
loaded  directly  into  cars  from  team  tracks  and  rehandled  at  an  outer 
L.  C.  L.  clearing  house. 

In  this  layout  existing  freight  house  locations  are  shown  in  solid 
black  rectangles ;  possible  additional  houses  in  open  rectangles. 

The  capacity  of  this  layout  is : 

House  tracks;  1,524  cars,  standing  capacity. 

Team  tracks ;  2,650  cars,  standing  capacity. 


50 


51 


Scheme  No.  3 — Shown  on  Plate  No.  9. 

In  this  scheme  the  St.  Charles  Air  Line  is  removed  and  the 
approach  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  from  the  west  is  shown 
south  of  Eighteenth  Street.  This  permits  a  complete  separation  of 
railroad  grade  crossings  in  the  territory  and  makes  possible  the 
opening  up  of  Fourteenth  Street,  Sixteenth  Street  and  Eighteenth 
Street  on  satisfactory  grades. 

Sherman  Street,  Fifth  Avenue  and  Franklin  Street  are  shown 
opened  up  continuously  through  the  district.  Freight  houses  are 
located  in  the  territory  between  Clark  Street  and  the  River,  and  the 
territory  between  Clark  Street  and  State  Street  is  shown  free  of 
railroad  occupation. 

As  will  be  seen  from  the  plate,  house  tracks  are  shown  in  sets 
of  four  on  the  lower  level,  with  longitudinal  platforms  between  each 
set  serving  two  sets  of  tracks  on  each  side.  On  the  street  or  upper 
level  the  houses  are  shown  provided  with  cross  platforms  for  receiv- 
ing freight  connected  by  elevators  with  the  longitudinal  platforms 
below. 

Under  this  arrangernent,  teams  would  not  occupy  street  space 
while  receiving  or  delivering  freight,  thereby  greatly  relieving  con- 
gestion on  the  thoroughfare  streets.  It  also  provides  a  much  greater 
capacity  for  standing  teams  than  in  the  arrangement  where  receiving 
platforms  are  parallel  with  the  tracks  and  enables  a  maximum  num- 
ber of  cars  to  be  reached  with  a  minimum  amount  of  trucking. 

By  making  the  track  groups  in  short  lengths  economical  switch- 
ing facilities  are  provided. 

This  layout  gives  a  car  standing  capacity  of  3,580  cars  on  house 
tracks  and  800  cars  on  team  tracks. 


52 


53 


Scheme  No.  4 — Shown  on  Plate  No.  10. 

In  Scheme  No.  4  the  track  arrangement  is  practically  the  same 
as  Scheme  No.  3,  the  St.  Charles  Air  Line  being  shown  removed  and 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  tracks  shown  south  of  Eighteenth  Street. 
The  street  arrangement  is  the  same  as  Scheme  No.  3,  and  a  similar 
house  layout  is  used. 

In  this  scheme,  however,  the  railroad  occupancy  is  shown  ex- 
tending east  to  Dearborn  Street.  This  is  done  in  order  to  provide 
for  a  market  place  development  along  the  River  from  Taylor  Street 
to  Sixteenth  Street. 

As  shown  on  the  plate,  the  stores  for  the  market  development 
would  be  in  the  narrow  block  between  Franklin  Street  and  Fifth 
Avenue  extended.  This  would  give  two  broad  streets  on  each  side 
of  the  stores,  which  would  greatly  assist  in  relieving  congestion  and 
would  permit  of  railroad  tracks  serving  the  stores  on  the  lower  level 
and  also  direct  access  to  the  stores  from  the  river. 

Team  track  facilities  are  provided  in  the  blocks  between  Fifth 
Avenue  and  Sherman  Street.  Should  it  be  found  desirable,  cold 
storage  warehouses  could  be  provided  adjacent  to  the  River,  either 
in  the  block  between  Twelfth  and  Taylor  Streets  or  between  Taylor 
and  Polk  Streets. 

This  layout  gives  a  car  standing  capacity  of  3,330  cars  on  house 
tracks  and  1,070  cars  on  team  tracks. 


54 


55 


Scheme  No.  5 — Shown  on  Plate  No.  11. 

Scheme  No.  5  shows  an  arrangement  for  a  more  intensive  de- 
velopment of  freight  terminals,  with  the  south  branch  of  the  Chicago 
River  remaining  unchanged,  and  on  the  assumption  that  the  existing 
passenger  terminals  between  State.  Street  and  the  Chicago  River 
would  be  removd. 

In  this  scheme  it  is  contemplated  that  the  present  bridge  of  the 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Chicago  Terminal  Railroad  across  the  Chicago 
River  would  remain  unchanged,  and  that  a  freight  development  for 
the  tenant  roads  of  this  Company  would  be  made  between  Fifth  Ave- 
nue and  the  River  and  extending  to  Harrison  Street,  occupying  the 
territory  now  used  for  other  freight  and  terminal  facilities. 

The  St.  Charles  Air  Line  and  the  Lake  Shore,  Rock  Island  and 
Western  Indiana  tracks  are  shown  as  at  present. 

A  two-level  freight  house  development  is  shown  extending  from 
Twelfth  Street  to  Polk  Street  and  from  State  Street  to  the  River,  and 
the  territory  between  State  Street  and  the  River  south  of  Twelfth 
Street  is  shown  occupied  by  team  tracks.  The  same  arrangement  of 
freight  houses  is  used  as  is  shown  in  Scheme  No.  1,  Plate  No.  7. 

In  this  arrangement,  all  streets  between  State  Street  and  Fifth 
Avenue  are  shown  opened  up  to  Twelfth  Street.  South  of  Twelfth 
Street,  Dearborn  Street  and  Clark  Street  are  shown  opened  through 
the  terminal.  Polk  and  Taylor  Streets  are  shown  on  an  upper  level 
with  ramps  connecting  with  State  Street. 

This  layout  gives  a  car  standing  capacity  of  1,030  cars  on  house 
tracks  and  900  cars  on  team  tracks. 


56 


TtNTATTVE  Plan  ron 
REARRANGEMENT  OF  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

SCHEME  N°5. 

To  accompany  report  of  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  C-ommiaaion 

SCM-t  Of  Map 


67 


«V>>^"' 


>s^^ 


5-^ 


EXHIBIT  No,  IV 
STRAIGHTENING  CHICAGO  RIVER 


EXHIBIT  No.  IV 
STRAIGHTENING    CHICAGO   RIVER 


On  Plate  No.  12  is  shown  the  proposed  straightening  of  the  south 
branch  of  the  Chicago  River  along  the  line  given  in  the  Union  Station 
ordinance  and  the  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  freight  ordinance  March  23, 
1914,  and  the  B.  &  O.  C.  T.  ordinance  passed  February  19,  1915,  and 
the  C.  &  W.  I.  ordinance  now  pending  before  the  City  Council. 

The  property  owned  by  different  railroads  in  the  district  affected 
by  this  proposed  change  is  shown  on  this  plate  and  in  the  following 
table  is  given  the  approximate  areas  between  Clark  Street  and  the 
center  line  of  Dodge  Street,  which  is  the  west  line  of  the  proposed 
change. 

The  areas  given  are  based  on  a  compilation  of  available  existing 
data  and  are  as  reasonably  accurate  as  could  be  obtained  without 
making  a  special  survey. 


58 


Q 


t«  « «i 


CA! 


'"J 


CM  ' 
i_    Ih     u. 

O   rt  rt 


m;S5s 


O   o     • 


o 


O 
I— I 

W 
H 

O 
I— ( 

< 
H 

CO 

W 
> 

I— ( 

o 

H 

W 
P 
P 

LO 
< 

W 

< 


k. 


<-3     ^    , 

^  ^  On 


U 


ro 


a,0 


S  o  S  ^  r>»  ro  5>.  t 

t^  (— )  ij->  O  ■—!  ^H  ro 


Co 


5 

s 

to 


O  O  O  O  : 


JOOO 


QOOp 

oCoo'"m5o'c> 

CO 


CO 

CO 


coco 
coco 


(U 


.5 

rt   ct3   u 


o3 


u 

-a 


5^^ 


-a 
c 

59 


CO 
» — I 

CO 


Cvf 


o 


H 
O 

H 


> 

o 

bo 


4»    •  ^^ 

S?  «  S 

irj  rt  <u 
CM  3  w 
1— I    53<  o 

Tf  w  a. 
o\      o 

C  I— I    o 

2:ao5 

'-'  c     . 

<*-  w  "co 

u   o  -^ 

W    C^    (U 

oj   S   t, 

>.  <u       c. 

■"      fe    •4-' 

^  r;  «  oj 

Oj  o 

"^   C    b    0) 
W--  '^  u 

I-*  c 

"-►-'    E    t    ''l 

o  w  0-" 


60 


APPENDIX  "A" 
EUROPEAN  TRIP 


APPENDIX  "A" 
EUROPEAN  TRIP 

CHICAGO  RAILWAY  TERMINAL  COMMISSION  EUROPEAN 

TRIP— 1914. 

The  personnel  of  the  party  was  as  follows: 

Members  of  the  Chicago  Railway  Terminal  Commission: 

John  F.  Wallace,  Chairman, 

Walter  L.  Fisher, 

BioN  J.  Arnold, 

Edward  H.  Bennett, 

Lawrence  E.  McGann,  Commissioner  of  Public  Works, 

John  W.  Beckwith,  Assistant  Corporation  Counsel, 

Alderman  Ellis  Geiger, 

Chairman,  City  Council  Committee  on  Railway  Terminals. 

Chairmen  of  the  following  Committees  of  the  City  Council: 

Committee  on  Finance — 

Alderman  John  A,  Richert,  Chairman,  ■.  ; 

Committee  on  Local  Transportation — 

Alderman  Eugene  Block,  Chairman, 

Committee  on  Harbors,  Wharves  and  Bridges — 
Alderman  Harry  E.   Littler,   Chairman, 

Committee  on  Streets  and  Alleys — 

Alderman  William  J.  Healy,  Chairman, 

Committee  on  Health — 

Alderman  Willis  O.  Nance,  M.  D.,  Chairman. 

Representing  the  Board  of  Education  : 

John  D.  Shoop,  First  Assistant  Superintendent  of  Schools, 

Lewis  E.  Larson,  Secretary  Board  of  Education, 

Angus  Roy  Shannon,  Attorney  for  the  Board  of  Education. 

Representing  the  Association  of  Commerce: 
Henry  C.  Barlow,  Traffic  Director. 

Representing  the  City  Club  of  Chicago: 
George  E.  Hooker,  Civic  Secretary. 

Representing  the  Steam   Railroads  of   Chicago: 
Edward  C.  Carter,  Consulting  Engineer. 

Representing  the  Chicago  Surface  Lines: 
John  E.  Wilkie,  Assistant  to  President. 

61 


Staff  Accompanying  Party: 

William  F.  Harrah,  Secretary  of  City  Council  Committees. 

E.  N.  Lake^  Engineer. 

A.  R.  Conner,  Stenographer. 

Before  leaving  Chicago  it  was  necessary  to  secure  sailing  accom- 
modations, work  out  an  itinerary,  arrange  necessary  credentials  and 
advise  the  authorities  of  the  cities  to  be  visited  of  the  probable  time 
of  arrival  of  the  party  and  the  nature  of  the  information  desired.  This 
work  was  carried  on  with  all  possible  dispatch  and  the  party  left 
Chicago  with  the  following  itinerary  arranged : 


July 

9 — Thursday 
10 — Friday 
1 1 — Saturday 
12 — Sunday 
13— Monday 
20— Monday 
20— Monday 
21 — Tuesday 
21 — Tuesday 
22 — ^Wednesday 
23 — Thursday 
24 — Friday 
25 — Saturday 
26 — Sunday 
27— Monday 
28 — Tuesday 
29 — Wednesday 
30 — Thursday 
31 — Friday 
August 
1 — Saturday 
2 — Sunday 
3 — Monday 
4 — Tuesday 
5 — Wednesday 
6 — Thursday 
7 — Friday 
8 — Saturday 
9 — Sunday 
10— Monday 
1 1 — Tuesday 
12 — Weclnesday 
13 — Thursday 
14 — Friday 
15 — Saturday 
16 — Sunday 
17— Monday 


Itinerary. 
Toronto 
Montreal 

}  Boston 

New  York 

Arrive  Liverpool  (Lusitania) 

Leave  for  Manchester 

In  Manchester 

Leave  at  noon  for  London 

"In  London 


London  to  Paris 

In  Paris 

Paris  to  Frankfurt 
In  Frankfurt 

Frankfurt  to  Vienna 


Vienna  (Vienna  to  Budapest  and  return,  optional) 

Vienna  to  Dresden 
Dresden  to  Berlin 

Berlin  (Berlin  to  Liepzig  and  return,  optional) 

Berlin  to  Hamburg 
Hamburg  to  Kiel 
Kiel  to  Copenhagen 
Copenhagen  to  Stockholm 


I 


In  Stockholm. 

From  Stockholm,  the  return  to  Berlin,  Paris  or  London, 
optional  with  members  of  the  party. 

62 


The  party  left  Chicago  the  afternoon  of  Wednesday,  July  8th, 
arriving  in  Toronto  the  morning  of  July  9th. 

At  Toronto  the  party  was  shown  over  the  railway  terminals,  the 
harbors  and  wharves,  and  was  particularly  interested  in  the  harbor 
work  now  under  way  by  the  City  of  Toronto,  the  magnitude  and 
completeness  of  which  was  considered  an  object  lesson  applicable  to 
Chicago,  particularly  as  Toronto — like  Chicago — is  situated  on  the 
Great  Lakes,  and  its  harbor  facilities  are  therefore  the  accommodation 
of  lake  traffic.  This  similarity  is  modified  to  some  extent,  however, 
by  the  existence  at  Toronto  of  a  large  amount  of  car  ferry  traffic 
which  does  not  exist  at  Chicago. 

The  harbor  improvements  and  construction  at  Toronto  included 
the  construction  of  about  five  miles  of  dockage ;  the  reclamation  of 
about  one  thousand  acres  of  land  for  industrial  purposes;  the  build- 
ing of  an  outer  driveway  around  the  harbor;  the  construction  of  a 
bathing  beach  and  protective  waterways  for  pleasure  crafts. 

All  of  the  harbor  work  is  under  control  of  the  Harbor  Board, 
composed  of  five  members,  who  serve  without  pav.  Three  of  the 
members  of  this  Board  are  selected  by  the  City  and  two  by  the  Do- 
minion Government. 

In  connection  with  the  harbor  improvements  there  is  also  under 
way  at  Toronto  a  rearrangement  of  railway  terminals,  involving  the 
building  of  a  terminal  station  and  a  great  amount  of  grade  separation 
work. 

From  Toronto  the  party  proceeded  to  Montreal  where  it  was  met 
by  representatives  of  the  city,  the  Harbor  Board  and  the  railroads. 
A  visit  was  made  to  the  railway  terminals  which  are  quite  extensive 
and  through  which  a  large  volume  of  traffic  is  handled,  particularly 
during  the  summer  months  when  the  harbor  is  open  for  trans-Atlantic 
shipments. 

The  harbor  facilities  are  administered  by  a  Harbor  Board  and 
are  constantly  being  improved.  There  are  extensive  facilities  for 
handling  cargoes  of  grain  and  several  modern  piers  capable  of  hand- 
ling packages  on  two  levels.  There  is  a  harbor  railroad  operated  by 
the  harbor  authorities  which  connects  with  all  railroads  and  performs 
the  switching  operations  between  the  railroad  connections  and  the 
wharves. 

From  Montreal  the  party  traveled  to  Boston,  where  the  harbor 
and  freight  terminals  were  inspected ;'  also  the  two  passenger  termi- 
nals, the  north  station  and  the  south  station.  The  freight  terminal 
situation  in  Boston  is  similar  to  that  in  Chicago,  except  that  it  is  com- 
plicated   with    the    necessary    arrangements    for   handling   of   freight 

66 


between  railroads  and  boats ;  that  is,  the  railroads  each  have  their 
own  terminals  and  there  is  no  independent  railroad  operating  on  the 
wharves  by  harbor  authorities  as  there  is  in  Montreal.  The  passenger 
service  is  concentrated  in  two  great  co-operative  passenger  stations — 
one  for  the  northern  and  the  other  for  the  southern  roads. 

The  South  Passenger  Station  in  Boston  is  the  largest  in  Amer- 
ica, the  number  of  passengers  handled  daily  at  this  station  exceeding 
the  number  handled  in  all  of  the  passenger  stations  in  Chicago.  A 
large  percentage  of  this  traffic,  however,  is  suburban,  the  number  of 
long  distance  trains  being  considerably  less  than  in  Chicago.  Through 
routing  of  passenger  trains  between  the  North  Station  and  the  South 
Station  is  suggested. 

It  was  learned  that  the  freight  terminal  situation  in  Boston  is 
becoming  acute  and  that  considerable  study  is  being  made  at  the 
present  time  to  remedy  the  conditions  existing  there. 

From  Boston  the  party  proceeded  to  New  York.  In  New  York 
they  inspected  the  Pennsylvania  Station  and  the  new  Grand  Central 
Station,  and  were  taken  by  the  harbor  authorities  by  boat  along  the 
river  front,  where  they  had  an  excellent  opportunity  to  view  the  har- 
bor development  of  New  York. 

A  visit  was  also  made  to  the  Bush  Terminal,  at  South  Brooklyn, 
where  the  party  was  shown  over  the  working's  of  this  plant. 

The  Harbor  authorities  furnished  the  party  with  statistical  in- 
formation showing  the  growth  and  existing  commerce  of  the  Port  of 
New  York,  and  also  explained  the  plans  for  extension  of  the  harbor 
facilities.  After  making  this  inspection  a  trip  was  made  through  the 
subways  of  New  York. 

The  railroad  situation  in  New  York  is  very  different  from  that 
existing  in  Chicago,  but  the  Commission  was  able  to  observe  a  very 
practical  demonstration  of  the  value  of  through  routing  in  the  sub- 
ways. 

The  party  sailed  from  New  York  for  Europe  on  the  Cunard  Line 
S.  S.  Lusitania,  July  14,  1914. 

The  party  arrived  at  Liverpool  Monday,  July  20,  where  the  Right 
Honorable  Lord  Mayor  Rathbone  of  Liverpool  came  on  board  to  re- 
ceive them.  He  was  accompanied  by  A.  D.  Mea-rns,  Manager,  and 
E.  J.  Hoblyn,  in  charge  of  salon  passengers,  of  the  Cunard  Company;. 
J.  A.  Chandler,  Chairman  and  General  Manager;  C.  Dow  and  L.  A. 
P.  Warner,  members  of  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbor  Board  ;  J.  E. 
Charnley,  Cheshire  Lines  Committee;  G.  T.  Phizackerly,  of  the  Lon- 
don &  Northwestern ;  T.  Henshaw,  of  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire ; 
T.  Evans,  of  Midland  Railway;  E.  J.  Neachell,  General  Manager  of 

64 


the  Liverpool  Overhead  Railway  Company;  Donald  Rose,  European 
Traffic  Manager  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railway;  E.  J.  Wareing,  of  the 
Grand  Trunk  Railway;  Philip  LeQ.  Berry,  Liverpool  Representative 
of  the  Illinois  Central  Railway;  Percey  Corkhill  and  R.  Crail. 

After  dinner,  which  was  served  at  the  Midland-Adelphi  Hotel, 
Mr.  Chandler,  General  Manager  of  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbor 
Board,  read  an  address  descriptive  of  the  workings  of  the  Board. 

Tuesday,  July  21,  the  party  was  conducted  to  the  offices  of  the 
Mersey  Docks  and  Harbor  Board  by  Philip  LeQ.  Berry.  After 
viewing  the  maps  and  models  of  the  harbor  plan,  an  inspection  was 
made  of  the  docks  and  wharves  and  the  railway  terminals  and  con- 
nections, under  the  guidance  of  Messrs.  Dow,  Warner,  Phizackerly, 
Henshaw  and  Neachell. 

From  the  addresses  made  and  as  a  result  of  the  interviews  and 
inspections,  the  following  information  relative  to  the  harbor  and 
terminal  facilities  at  Liverpool  and  the  management  and  operation  of 
the  same  was  developed. 

The  docks,  wharves  and  facilities  in  connection  with  the  Port  of 
Liverpool,  together  with  connecting  railroads  serving  these  facilities, 
are  under  the  management  and  control  of  the  Mersey  Docks  and 
Harbor  Board.  This  Board  consists  of  twenty-eight  members, 
twenty-four  of  whom  are  elected  by  the  dock  rate  payers  and  four  by 
the  government.  These  members  serve  without  remuneration  for 
their  services. 

The  harbor  development  is  on  both  sides  of  the  River  Mersey, 
the  Liverpool  side  having  a  frontage  of  six  and  a  half  miles,  with  a 
water  area  of  430  acres  and  a  lineal  quayage  of  twenty-six  and  a  half 
miles.  The  Birkenhead  side  has  a  frontage  of  one  and  a  quarter 
miles,  a  water  area  of  172  acres  and  a  lineal  quayage  of  about  ten 
miles.  The  total  area  of  land  and  water  under  control  of  the  Harbor 
Board  is  about  4,200  acres. 

The  Harbor  is  very  completely  equipped  with  warehouses  and 
extensive  mechanical  equipment  for  the  transfer  of  freight  between 
the  wharf  and  the  vessels.  The  Harbor  Board  operates  the  connect- 
ing railroad  which  serves  the  wharves  and  has  connection  with  all 
of  the  railway  terminals.  Switching  service  is  performed  by  the 
Harbor  Board ;  that  is,  their  engines  take  loaded  cars  from  the  rail- 
way terminal  yards  and  deliver  them  to  the  warehouses  and  wharves 
and  return  the  empties,  and  vice  versa.  This  service  is  performed 
approximately  at  cost. 

The  total  amount  charged  to  capital  expenditure  by  the  Board  up 
to   1913,  amounted  to  $150,000,000.     The  annual  revenue  for  main- 

65 


tenance  amounts  to  about  $11,000,000,  and  the  expenditures  for  main- 
tenance about  $5,000,000,  and  for  interest  on  capital  about  $4,500,000. 

The  total  imports  and  exports  passing  through  the  Liverpool 
port  amount  to  3,706,448  tons — about  equal  to  those  of  London — and 
amount  to  about  28  per  cent  of  the  total  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

Later  the  party  visited  the  Lime  Street  Station  of  the  London 
&  Northv^restern  Railway,  where  Mr.  W.  N.  Turnbull,  Assistant 
Superintendent  of  the  Lines,  conducted  the  party  over  the  station. 

From  Liverpool  the  party  proceeded  to  Manchester,  arriving 
there  the  afternoon  of  Tuesday,  July  21.  The  party  was  received  at 
the  London  &  Northwestern  Depot  by  Right  Honorable  Lord  Mayor 
of  Manchester,  Alderman  McCabe;  Dr.  W.  St.  C.  McClure,  Deputy 
Medical  Officer;  Mr.  Walker,  Superintendent  of  Police  and  others, 
and  escorted  to  the  Midland  Hotel,  where  a  luncheon  was  given  by 
the  Board  of  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  John  K.  Bythell,  Esq.,  Chair- 
man of  the  Board,  presiding. 

In  addition  to  the  members  of  the  Chicago  party,  there  were 
present  Lord  Mayor  McCabe;  John  K.  Bythell,  Chairman  of  the 
Board  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal;  Alderman  Sir  T.  Thornhill 
Shann,  former  Lord  Mayor;  Marshall  Stevens,  Secretary  of  the 
Trafford  Park  Estates  Company ;  Henry  C.  Pingstone,  Esq.,  Director 
of  the  Ship  Canal  Company;  Mr.  Walker,  Superintendent  of  Police; 
Mr.  Eyre,  Superintendent  and  Accountant  of  the  Ship  Canal  Com- 
pany; Herbert  M.  Gibson,  Chief  Traffic  Superintendent  of  the  Canal 
Company;  H.  A.  Reed,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Canal  Company;  Dr. 
McClure,  Deputy  Medical  Officer;  Mr.  Meek,  Deputy  City  Sur- 
veyor; Counsellor  Sir  Charles  Behrens,  former  Lord  Mayor;  W.  H. 
Robertson,  United  States  Consul  at  Manchester,  and  Donald  Rose, 
European  Traffic  Manager  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad. 

After  luncheon  the  party  listened  to  the  addresses  of  Lord 
Mayor  McCabe  and  Mr.  Bythell,  and  were  then  escorted  by  Messrs. 
Gibson,  Latimer,  Reed  and  Stevens  on  a  trip  of  inspection  of  the 
Manchester  Ship  Canal,  including  the  various  warehouses,  wharves, 
docks,  mechanical  appliances,  etc.,  operated  in  connection  with  the 
Canal;  also  the  Trafiford  Park  Estates,  which  are  adjacent  to  the 
Canal  and  on  which  a  large  industrial  development  is  being  made. 
The  party  was  escorted  through  the  Trafford  Park  Estates  by  Mr. 
Stevens  and  were  later  entertained  at  tea  at  Trafiford  Hall  by  Lord 
and  Lady  Royse. 

Mr.  Stevens  explained  to  the  party  the  facilities  for  the  tran- 
shipment of  goods  and  explained  the  arrangement  between  the  Traf- 
ford Park  Estates  and  the  Board  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  by 

66 


which  the  transfer  of  traffic  between  the  Ship  Canal  and  any  part  of 
Trafford  Park  was  performed  at  cost.  Incidentally,  the  party  was 
conducted  through  the  local  plant  of  the  Westinghouse  Electric  & 
Manufacturing  Company  in  the  Trafiford  Park  Estates  by  Phillipp 
Lange,  Managing  Director. 

The  Commission  was  very  much  impressed  with  the  enterpris- 
ing spirit  displayed  by  the  people  of  Manchester  in  causing  this  ship 
canal  to  be  dug  for  a  distance  of  thirty-five  miles,  thus  opening  up 
Manchester  to  the  traffic  of  the  world,  Manchester  being  today — in 
the  point  of  export  trade — the  fourth  largest  port  in  the  United  King- 
dom. As  at  Liverpool,  the  party  learned  that  the  Port  of  Manchester 
also  was  provided  with  a  connecting  railroad  which  handled  all 
traffic  between  wharves  and  warehouses  and  the  yards  of  the  con- 
necting railroad,  performing  the  service  practically  at  cost  and  allow- 
ing all  railroads  equal  access  to  all  points  in  the  port. 

From  Manchester  the  party  proceeded  to  London,  arriving  there 
Wednesday,  July  22.  In  the  forenoon  a  visit  was  made  to  the  plant 
of  the  New  Transport  Company,  where  the  party  was  shown  a  full 
size  working  model  of  the  apparatus  designed  by  this  Company  for 
the  handling  of  freight  between  wagons  and  cars  and  from  car  to  car 
by  a  system  of  cranes  and  platform  carriers.  The  Commission  was 
very  much  interested  in  this  demonstration,  but  was  not  clear  as  to 
its  application  to  conditions  as  existing  in  America. 

In  the  afternoon  the  party  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Rose  to  the 
office  of  the  London  Dock  Board  and  from  there  proceeded  in  charge 
of  Mr.  A.  Binns  to  the  Albert  and  Victoria  docks. 

On  Thursday  the  party  visited  the  Broad  Street  Goods  Station 
of  the  London  &  North  Western  Railroad.  The  Broad  Street  Goods 
Station  is  on  two  levels,  cars  being  taken  from  one  level  to  the  other 
by  means  of  elevators ;  the  movement  of  cars  into  the  various  sidings 
being  accomplished  by  means  of  turn  tables  and  capstans  and  not 
by  switching  with  locomotives  as  is  done  in  America. 

The  London  &  North  Western  Railway  has  various  stations  to 
which  is  brought  inbound  and  outbound  freight  for  delivery  to  cer- 
tain prescribed  territory.  Broad  Street  Station  being  one  of  these 
stations.  Only  the  lower  level  of  this  station  has  connection  with 
the  railroad  lines.  The  capacity  of  the  Broad  Street  Station  was  387 
cars  per  day. 

After  being  shown  the  operation  of  the  turn  tables  and  elevators, 
the  party  was  conducted  to  the  receiving  warehouses,  where  out- 
bound freight  is  received  from  the  trucks  and  wagons  and  is  sorted 

67 


and  loaded  into  the  railroad  cars,  and  the  method  of  performing  this 
work  was  explained. 

From  here  the  party  went  to  the  Camden  Goods  Station,  which 
is  the  general  break-up  yard  and  place  where  goods  are  re-sorted 
for  the  various  other  stations  of  the  London  &  North  Western  in 
London,  this  road  having  twenty-eight  stations  in  the  city  of  London. 

It  was  stated  here  that  the  full  carload  business  amounted  to 
about  20%  of  the  total  number  of  cars  hauled,  the  balance  being 
loaded  with  L.  C.  L.  shipments,  which  are  re-sorted  into  cars  bound 
for  the  proper  destination.  This  applied  to  inbound  business.  Out- 
bound business  is  loaded  directly  in  the  proper  car  at  the  receiving 
station. 

The  method  of  carrying  on  the  work  at  this  station  was  ex- 
plained to  the  Commission  and  also  the  arrangement  in  existence 
regarding  the  interchange  freight  between  several  roads  entering 
London. 

It  developed  in  the  course  of  these  explanations  that  each  rail- 
road will  receive  freight  destined  to  points  on  other  roads  a  distance 
from  London,  but  will  not  receive  freight  destined  to  a  point  on 
another  railroad  within  London  Terminal  District. 

At  4:30  P.  M.  a  reception  was  tendered  to  the  party  by  the 
London  Chamber  of  Commerce.  The  members  of  the  party  were 
received  on  behalf  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  by  Mr.  F.  FaithfuU 
Begg,  Chairman  of  the  Council;  Mr.  Arthur  Serena,  Treasurer  of 
the  Chamber;  Sir  Albert  K.  Rollitt,  D.  C.  L.  Ex-President;  Mr.  C. 
Urquhart  Fisher,  L.  C.  C. ;  Mr.  J.  E.  Evans  Jackson,  Mr.  Graham 
P.  Spicer,  the  Honorable  J.  G.  Jenkins,  Mr  Stanley  Meachim,  Vice- 
President,  Mr.  William  Gillespie  (Members  of  the  Council  Chamber)  ; 
Lord  Claude  Hamilton,  M.  P.,  Chairman  of  the  Great  Eastern  Rail- 
way; Mr.  J.  H.  Fahey  and  Mr.  Donald  Rose. 

On  Friday,  July  21,  a  visit  was  made  to  the  Liverpool  Street 
.Station  of  the  Great  Eastern  Railway.  This  station  has  eighteen 
station  tracks  and  for  operating  purposes  is  divided  into  three  sec- 
tions, namely :  West  Suburban,  Main  Line,  and  East  Suburban.  The 
maximum  traffic  handled  at  this  station  per  hour  is  ninety-six  trains 
with  the  possibility  of  operating  at  a  three-minute  headway.  On 
the  busiest  day  it  was  stated  that  they  were  operated  in  and  out  of 
this  station  1,300  trains  and  that  on  a  normal  day  the  number  of 
people  carried  in  and  out  exceeded  200,000. 

After  an  inspection  of  this  station  the  party  was  taken  to  the 
office  of  Mr.  Thornton  of  the  Great  Eastern  Railway  and  the  ques- 
tions  of   through   routing  and   electrification   were   discussed.      Mr. 


Thornton  expressed  himself  very  much  in  favor  of  through  routing" 
suburban  business  and  explained  to  the  party  how  profitable  subur- 
ban business  was  to  the  railroads  entering  London.  He  also  stated 
that  with  a  given  density  of  traffic  he  was  firmly  convinced  as  to 
the  economy  of  electrical  operation. 

The  party  also  learned  that  the  Brighton  branch  of  the  South 
Eastern  Railroad  is  being  electrified  and  very  serious  consideration 
being  given  to  the  electrification  of  the  passenger  service  of  other 
lines  entering  London,  and  that  the  project  of  through  routing  of 
suburban  trains  was  receiving  very  serious  consideration  and  that 
the  consensus  of  opinion  among  railroad  men  seemed  to  be  that  this 
through  routing  was  desirable,  and  plans  are  in  progress  of  prepara- 
tion for  carrying  this  through  routing  into  efifect.* 

In  regard  to  freight  business,  the  fact  which  most  interested  the 
Commission  was  the  arrangement  of  tariffs  so  that  they  were  divided 
between  terminal  charge  and  line  haul,  that  is,  an  assignment  of 
freight  originating  in  London  would  have  a  tariff  charge  covering 
the  terminal  cost ;  at  London  another  tariff  covering  transportation 
and  another  tariflf  for  the  terminal  work  at  destination,  the  terminal 
charges  covering  the  unloading  of  freight  at  the  house  and  also  the 
cost  of  handling  consignments  from  the  freight  house  to  the  ware- 
house or  stores  of  the  consignee. 

All  of  this  work  is  being  performed  by  the  railroads,  although 
it  is  optional  with  the  shipper  to  cart  his  own  consignment  to  the 
freight  depot  if  he  so  elects  and  secure  a  rebate  of  that  portion  of  the 
tariflf  covering  this  work. 

The  party  left  England  on  Sunday,  arriving  at  Paris  Monday, 
July  27.  The  morning  was  devoted  to  a  visit  to  the  Prefecture  of 
Police,  where  the  party  was  received  by  M.  Laurent,  also  M.  Joltrain, 
Superintendent  of  Circulation,  and  M.  Kling,  Laboratory  Chief.  The 
method  in  vogue  for  handling  traffic  on  the  streets  was  explained 
and  a  visit  made  to  the  laboratory  and  to  the  Police  School,  and  the 
Commission  was  afterwards  given  an  exhibition  of  fire  fighting 
methods. 

At  3 :00  o'clock,  P.  M.,  a  reception  was  tendered  to  the  party 
at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  by  M.  LeMarchand,  Vice-President  of  the 
Council  Municipal ;  M.  Laurent,  Secretary  General  of  the  Prefecture 
of  Police;  Mr.  Aubannel,  Secretary  General  of  the  Prefecture  of  the 
Seine ;  and  M.  Cherest,  Secretary  of  the  Council  General.     Ambas- 


*For  complete  report  of  interview  with  Mr.  Thornton  see  supplement  to 
this  appendix. 

69 


sador  Herrick  and  members  of  an  important  American  official  party 
were  also  present. 

On  Tuesday,  July  29,  a  visit  was  made  to  the  Gare  de  Lyons, 
where  the  party  was  received  by  M.  Leon  Humbert,  Station  Master, 
and  M.  Felix  Lorinet.  After  an  inspection  of  this  station,  the  party 
proceeded  to  the  Bourch  Freight  Station  where  the  method  of  opera- 
tion was  explained  to  the  Commission. 

At  this  station  the  freight  is  received  on  platforms  and  sorted 
and  loaded  into  cars.  The  cars  are  switched  by  turntable  and 
capstan  the  same  as  in  London.  The  railroads  here  engaged  in  the 
delivery  and  collecting  of  freight  at  the  door  of  the  consignee,  the 
same  as  in  London,  about  50%  of  the  freight  being  handled  by  the 
railroads  with  their  own  teams  and  the  balance  by  private  drayage 
companies. 

From  the  Bourcy  Freight  Station  the  party  proceeded  to  the 
Gare  d'Orleans,  where  an  inspection  was  made  of  freight  and  passen- 
ger terminals.  After  being  shown  over  both  of  these  properties  and 
the  facilities  connected  therewith — one  of  which  was  the  device  for 
the  automatic  sorting  of  express  packages — the  party  proceeded  by 
train  to  the  new  depot  of  this  line,  the  Gare  d'Orsay.  This  station 
is  located  within  a  mile  of  the  Gare  des  Invalides  of  the  State  Rail- 
road. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  officials  of  the  road  have  been  con- 
sidering the  desirability  of  connecting  these  two  stations  so  as  to 
make  a  through  route  through  Paris.  It  was  also  developed  in  con- 
nection with  these  investigations  that  there  is  a  considerable  business 
through  Paris  at  the  present  time,  solid  passenger  trains  being  trans- 
ferred from  one  side  of  Paris  to  the  other  by  belt  lines.  This  traffic 
is  mainly  tourist  travel  and  is  carried  on  the  entire  year,  but  is 
particularly  heavy  in  the  winter  time. 

M,  Humbert  explained  the  method  of  operation  of  the  inner 
and  outer  belt  as  regards  freight  and  passengers.  At  indicated 
points  of  transfer  this  belt  line  is  used  for  passenger  service  and 
also  for  freight  service,  performing  an  interchange  service  between 
different  railroads  and  also  a  switching  service  between  points  on 
its  line. 

Wednesday,  July  29.  A  visit  was  made  to  the  Gare  St.  Lazarre, 
which  is  the  station  of  the  government  owned  railroad.  The  party 
was  received  by  M.  Hornolle,  Chief  Engineer,  and  also  M.  Clavielle, 
Engineer  in  Chief  of  Bridges  and  Roadway,  who  explained  to  the 
party  the  general  feature  of  the  station,  which  was  at  that  time  in 
process  of  reconstruction.    One  of  these  features  was  the  mechanical 

70 


appliance  for  the  handling  of  packages  between  cars  and  the  baggage 
room. 

M.  Hornelle  and  M.  Claveille  also  explained  to  the  party  the 
history  in  connection  with  the  taking  over  and  operating  of  these 
railroads  by  the  State  and  the  amount  of  payments  made  and  the 
time  in  which  these  payments  would  cease  and  the  property  become 
owned  by  the  State.  M.  Tony  Reymond,  General  Secretary,  was 
present  and  offered  to  send,  upon  request,  any  information  or  sta- 
tistics desired. 

From  the  Gare  St.  Lazarre  the  party  proceeded  to  the  office  of 
M.  P.  Dommange,  Director  of  the  Control  Common,  and  from  there 
to  the  office  of  M.  Albert  Sartiaux,  Engineer  in  Chief  of  Bridges 
and  Roadway  of  the  Chemins  de  Fer  du  Nord,  and  made  an  appoint- 
ment for  an  interview  for  the  party  for  the  following  day. 

In  the  evening  M.  Dieny  and  M.  Lucas,  who  have  been  making 
a  study  of  the  transportation  facilities  of  Paris,  explained  some  of 
the  peculiar  circumstances  which  determined  the  nature  of  the  trans- 
portation problem  in  Paris,  system  of  fares  charged,  method  of 
operation,  etc. 

Thursday,  July  30.  The  party  made  a  visit  to  the  Gare  du  Nord 
and  were  received  by  M.  Javary,  Engineer  of  the  Chemain  de  fer  du 
Nord,  and  Mr.  Moutier,  Engineer  in  Chief  of  the  Technical  Service. 
These  men  explained  fully  the  operation  of  the  inner  and  outer  belt 
railroads.  It  developed  during  this  interview  that  the  outer  belt 
railroad  is  used  principally  for  the  detouring  of  carload  freight 
around  Paris,  a  great  deal  of  this  being  handled  in  solid  trains  with 
the  power  of  the  connecting  roads,  although  where  the  transfer  is 
less  than  the  train  lot  it  is  handled  by  the  power  of  the  belt  railroad. 

The  Belt  Railroad  also  performs  a  switching  service  between 
points  on  its  line.  The  inner  belt  is  used  principally  for  the  move- 
ment of  L.  C.  L.  freight  and  in  this  case  most  of  the  movement  is 
made  by  the  power  of  the  Belt  Railroad,  although  occasionally  there 
is  a  movement  over  this  line  by  the  power  of  the  connecting  roads. 

Most  of  the  through  passenger  service  referred  to  previously  is 
handled  over  the  outer  belt,  but  in  some  instances  it  is  handled  on 
the  inner  belt. 

Traffic  destined  to  Paris,  passing  over  the  inner  belt,  is  assessed 
a  tariff  in  addition  to  the  main  line  tariff.  On  many  commodities 
this  is  on  a  mileage  basis.  Both  of  these  railroads,  in  addition  to  the 
freight  service,  handle  passenger  service — which  is  principally  sub- 
urban. 

71 


J 


After  leaving  the  Gare  du  Nord,  the  party  made  a  trip  on  the 
Seine  in  one  of  the  regular  passenger  boats  which  operates  on  this 
river. 

From  all  of  the  investigations  made  at  Paris,  that  which  most 
interested  the  Commission  as  being  of  value  to  them  in  their  de- 
liberations relative  to  the  Chicago  terminals,  was  the  fact  that — to 
a  modified  extent — through  routing  of  trains  is  in  existance  at  the 
present  time  in  Paris  and  that  the  authorities  in  charge  of  the  opera- 
tions there  looked  with  favor  on  it  and  were  in  process  of  bringing 
about  a  more  extended  application  of  the  through  route  principle. 

The  party  was  very  much  interested  also  in  the  investigations  in 
connection  with  the  River  Seine  where  the  traffic  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent is  carried  on  by  barges  and  lighters  under  fixed  bridges,  which 
not  only  provide  uninterrupted  travel  across  the  river,  but  also  lend 
themselves  admirably  to  the  architectural  treatment  of  the  river  and 
its  banks. 

About  the  time  the  party  had  completed  its  investigations  in 
Paris,  the  possibilities  of  war  in  Europe  became  apparent  and  advices 
were  received  from  officials  at  Frankfort  and  Vienna  which  indicated 
that — on  account  of  existing  conditions — it  would  be  difficult  for  the 
Commission  to  make  any  extended   investigations   at   these  places. 

The  American  Ambassador  advised  the  party  that  he  thought  it 
would  be  more  prudent  to  change  the  itinerary  "so  that  the  party 
might  be  near  the  coast  and  in  position  to  return  to  England  in  case 
hostilities  should  break  out. 

It  was  therefore  decided  to  proceed  to  Antwerp,  by  way  of 
Brussels,  and  after  having  visited  both  of  these  places,  arrange 
the  itinerary  so  as  to  include  a  trip  through  Germany  and  Austria, 
if  conditions  permitted. 

The  party  left  Paris  on  the  morning  of  Friday,  July  31,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  Brussels,  where  an  interview  was  held  with  M.  Jacques, 
who  exhibited  the  plan  for  the  new  depot  at  Brussels  and  the  condi- 
tions which  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  plan. 

The  existing  facilities  consisted  of  a  north  station  and  a  south 
station,  both  of  which  were  stub-end  stations.  As  some  of  the  traffic 
of  Brussels  was  through  traffic,  it  there  became  necessary — in  the 
operation  of  the  through  trains — to  head  into  the  station,  back  out 
and  use  a  belt  line  around  the  city,  and  then  go  through  the  same 
process  at  the  other  station.  On  account  of  the  many  additional 
movements  occasioned  by  this  method  of  operation,  the  stations  were 
inadequate  in  size  and  additional  facilities  were  necessary. 

72 


The  authorities  therefore  came  to  the  decision  that  a  through 
station  would  be  better  adapted  to  the  situation,  and  made  plans  for 
the  construction*  of  a  line  connecting  these  two  stations  directly 
through  the  city  and  providing  for  a  central  through  station  thereon. 

The  plan  shows  this  connecting  link,  partly  in  tunnel  and  partly 
in  an  elevated  structure,  and  on  account  of  the  objection  to  the  opera- 
tion of  steam  locomotives  through  tunnel,  consideration  was  being 
given  to  the  proposition  of  operating  this  stretch  of  track  with  elec- 
tric locomotives. 

With  the  station  completed,  trains  originating  at  Paris  would  be 
operated  directly  through  this  station  and  continue  on  to  points  be- 
yond, and  trains  for  which  Brussels  is  a  terminal  would  be  operated 
through  the  station  from  north  to  south,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  into 
the  yards  at  the  opposite  side  of  the  city,  so  that  the  entire  operation 
of  this  station  would  be  as  a  through  station. 

This  arrangement  to  be  solely  for  the  accommodation  of  through 
trains,  or,  rather,  long-distance  trains,  as  suburban  trains  will  not 
use  the  central  station. 

This  feature  of  operating  trains  through  the  station  to  a  coach 
yard  on  either  side  was  of  much  interest  to  the  Commission.  It  was 
stated  that  the  total  trains  using  the  station  in  a  day  would  amount 
to  about  300,  of  which  100  would  be  through  trains  and  the  other 
200  Brussels  terminal  trains. 

It  developed  during  the  interview  that  this  project  was  started 
under  the  former  administration  and  that  the  present  administration 
was  not  altogether  in  favor  of  it,  but  was  compelled  to  carry  out  the 
contracts  already  entered  into.  The  principal  objection  to  it  seemed 
to  be  the  cost  and  the  physical  difficulties  of  carrying  out  the  project. 

Later  in  the  afternoon  the  party  proceeded  to  Antwerp. 

On  Saturday,  August  1,  a  trip  of  inspection  was  made  around 
the  docks  and  on  the  River  Scheld.  The  Commission  was  much  im- 
pressed by  the  splendid  and  extensive  harbor  facilities  and  the  rela- 
tion of  the  municipality  to  them.  It  was  found  at  Antwerp — as 
at  Liverpool  and  Manchester— that  there  was  in  operation  an  inde- 
pendent terminal  railway,  which  performed  the  switching  service 
between  the  railroads  and  the  wharves  and  docks,  this  railroad  being 
independent  of  the  main  transportation  lines  and  under  direct  con-. 
trol  of  the  harbor  authorities  and  performs  services  ostensibly  at  cost. 

War  having  been  declared  between  several  European  countries 
and  a  general  mobilization  of  the  troops  of  Belgium  ordered,  it  was 
felt  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  Commission  to  carry  on  any 
further  negotiations  on  the  Continent,  and  it  was  advised  by  U.  S. 

73 


Consul  Diedrich  that  it  would  be  advisable  to  return  to  London.  Ac- 
cordingly on  Sunday  the  party  proceeded  to  Ostend  and  took  steamer 
to  Dover  and  thence  to  London,  arriving  there  Monday,  August  3. 

Soon  after  arriving  in  London  war  was  declared  between  Eng- 
land and  Germany.  It  was  exceedingly  difficult  to  secure  money,  an 
extended  bank  holiday  having  been  declared,  and  the  interest  of  the 
country  was  so  absorbed  in  the  war  situation  that  it  was  felt  that  it 
would  be  impossible  for  the  Commission  to  continue  any  investiga- 
tions in  England,  and  on  account  of  the  great  difficulty  of  securing 
sailing  accommodations  for  the  party  in  a  body  for  return  to  this 
country,  after  a  discussion  the  following  resolution  was  unanimously 
adopted : 

"Whereas,  Present  conditions  existing  throughout  Great 
Britain  and  Europe,  do,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Chicago  Railway 
Terminal  Commission  and  its  associates,  render  impossible  the 
carrying  out  as  a  body  of  the  plans  laid  down  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Commission  and  its  associates  when  they  left  Chi- 
cago ;  now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  members  of  the  Chi- 
cago Railway  Terminal  Commission  that  they  be  relieved 
from  further  joint  and  several  duties,  and  they  do  recommend 
that  they  individually  arrange  their  return  home  whenever  prac- 
ticable." 

In  each  of  the  several  cities  visited  those  who  were  traveling 
with  the  party  and  making  investigations  not  related  to  railway  ter- 
minals were  put  in  communication  with  the  proper  authorities  and 
every  facility  and  courtesy  extended  to  them  for  the  carrying  on  of 
their  investigations. 

The  Commission  wishes  to  acknowledge  the  assistance  and  cour- 
tesies extended  by  the  municipal  and  railroad  officials  of  the  various 
places  visited  and  the  great  assistance  rendered  by  Donald  Rose,  Eu- 
ropean Traffic  Manager  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  in  arranging 
for  transportation,  hotel  accommodations  and  interviews  in  England; 
and  the  assistance  rendered  by  Mr.  Wm.  J.  Thomas,  Assistant  Direc- 
tor-General in  Europe  for  the  American  Express  Company,  also  M. 
Contanseau,  Director  of  the  Paris  Bureau,  and  M.  Paroutand,  his 
assistant,  who  performed  like  services  for  the  party  in  Paris. 


74 


SUPPLEMENT  TO  APPENDIX  "A" 

Stenographic  report  of  interview  between  members  of  the  Rail- 
way Terminal  Commission  and  those  accompanying  them  on  their 
European  trip,  and  Mr.  H.  W.  Thornton,  General  Manager  of  the 
Great  Eastern  Railway  of  England,  held  in  the  general  offices  of  the 
Great  Eastern  Railway,  Liverpool  Station,  London. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  Mr.  Thornton,  if  you  had  your  way  about  it, 
would  you  prefer  a  through  or  sub-station? 

MR.  THORNTON:  Based  on  the  assumption  that  your  traffic 
either  wants  to  go  beyond  your  station,  or  a  traffic  can  be  developed 
beyond  that  station,  then  a  through  station  is  in  every  respect  infin- 
itely more  satisfactory  than  a  stub  end.  It  will  handle  more  traffic 
and  handle  it  more  satisfactorily. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  If  you  could  connect  this  road  with  some  other 
road  to  the  south,  or  somewhere — ? 

MR.  THORNTON:  In  so  far  as  Liverpool  Street  Station  is 
concerned,  if  we  were  able  to  connect  with  some  one  of  the  under- 
ground systems,  electrify  our  own  suburban  zone  so  that  we  could 
run  trains  through  Liverpool  Street  on  to  the  rails  of  the  Under- 
ground system,  we  could  relieve  our  congestion  by  at  least  fifty  per 
cent.  Certainly,  if  we  could  accomplish  the  same  purpose  by  connect- 
ing with  some  other  line,  it  would  be  equally  advantageous  to  the 
other  line  as  to  ours  to  run  trains  straight  through  the  city. 

MR.  FISHER :  When  you  say  "another  line"  you  mean  another 
line  now  operated  by  steam? 

MR.  ARNOLD :  That  is  all  based  on  the  assumption  that  equi- 
table arrangements  could  be  arranged  with  other  lines  to  do  that? 

MR.  THORNTON:  You  understand  that  is  physically  impos- 
sible?   The  other  lines  do  not  exist. 

MR.  FISHER :  Isn't  it  true  that  the  traffic  from  east  to  west  is 
here? 

MR.  THORNTON:  You  understand  that  practically  it  comes 
down  to  this :  Liverpool  Street  Station  and  Friendship  Street  Station, 
which  we  also  own,  are  the  only  stations  in  the  East  End.  There 
are  a  lot  of  stations  of  other  lines  in  the  West  End.  The  Underground 
lines  form  the  only  link  that  can  exist  between  our  station  and  other 


stations  in  the  west.    Therefore,  those  Underground  lines  must  neces- 
sarily be  the  only  avenue  we  can  use  in  reaching  them. 

MR.  ARNOLD:  If  the  Underground  would  take  their  cars  ofif 
and  let  you  put  your  cars  on,  that  is  what  would  suit  you? 

MR.  THORNTON :  Yes,  in  consideration  of  our  electrification 
problem,  unless  we  can  form  the  physical  connection  with  some  one 
of  the  Underground  systems  and  run  our  trains  through,  I  don't  think 
we  are  justified  in  electrifying. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  are  lines  in  the  West  End  which  are  in 
many  respects  situated  as  you  are  which  would  like  to  connect  their 
trains  up  with  the  Underground  coming  to  the  east? 

MR.  THORNTON :    They  would  like  a  through  service. 

MR.  EISHER:  They  would  like  a  through  service,  just  as  you 
would.  Now,  the  question  is  whether  or  not  it  is  not  one  of  the 
things  to  which  careful  attention  should  be  paid  as  to  whether  or 
not  it  would  be  possible  to  effect  the  interchange  between  your  road 
and  one  of  the  West  End  roads,  so  that,  having  carried  your  trains 
through  to  the  West  End,  you  might  have  certain  coach  yard  facili- 
ties and  they  use  your  coach  yard? 

MR.  THORNTON:  Undoubtedly.  If,  for  instance,  three  or 
four,  perhaps,  of  the  West  End  lines  would  run  their  suburban  trains 
right  through  to  the  Underground  and  out  on  our  lines  and  back 
again,  it  would  be  the  maximum  of  economy. 

MR.  FISHER :  And  from  the  point  of  view  of  railroad  opera- 
tion, it  would  be  a  highly  desirable  thing,  wouldn't  it,  Mr.  Thornton? 

MR.  THORNTON :  In  other  words,  here  is  the  suburban  zone, 
and  we  will  say  that  here  is  Liverpool  Street,  and  here  are  some  of 
the  western  lines,  and  here,  we  will  say,  are  their  suburban  zones. 
(Indicating.)  Now,  obviously,  if  a  train  can  be  started  here  and  run 
right  through  around  the  same  way  and  back  again — 

MR.  ARNOLD:    The  "E"  represents  Liverpool  Street- 

MR.  THORNTON:  The  "D"  generally  represents  the  west 
terminal  of  the  other  steam  line ;  C,  D,  and  A  represent  their  suburban 
zones ;  "F"  represents  the  Great  Eastern  suburban  zone.  If  you 
could  run  a  train  from  A,  B,  or  C  through  D,  E,  out  into  F  and  back 
again,  that  would  be  desirable. 

MR.  FISHER :  Your  railroads  here,  Mr.  Thornton,  are  appar- 
ently very  much  interested  in  considering  electrification,  especially 
on  their  suburban  traffic? 

MR.  THORNTON:    Yes. 

MR.  FISHER:  That,  I  should  judge,  is  because  you  feel  the 
competition  of  the  trams  and  the  busses  and  the  things  of  that  sort? 

76 


MR.  THORNTON:  It  is  partly  competition.  I  don't  know 
whether  I  stated  it  to  you  or  not,  but  when  you  reach  a  certain  density 
of  traffic  it  becomes  more  economical  to  electrify.  When  you  reach 
a  further  condensation  of  traffic,  you  must  electrify  if  you  are  going 
to  handle  the  business  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  public  and  economy  to 
yourself. 

MR.  FISHER :  Our  American  lines  are  in  the  habit  of  saying, 
"We  do  not  care  for  suburban  business." 

MR.  THORNTON:  That  is  all  nonsense.  The  profit  on 
our  suburban  business  pays  a  dividend  on  our  ordinary  stock  and 
we  are  fighting  to  hang  on  to  it.  In  other  words,  the  profits  in  the 
passenger  business  depend  on  how  full  you  can  keep  your  trains. 
There  is  no  business  in  which  you  can  so  generally  fill  your  trains  as 
suburban  business.  I  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  there  is  more  profit  in 
the  suburban  business  than  in  the  so-called  trains  de  luxe.  Those 
are  an  expense. 

We  are  required,  between  certain  hours,  to  carry  workingmen 
for  two  pence,  a  distance  of  eight  or  ten  miles.  The  fare  is  four  pence 
a  round  trip.    The  average  haul  would  be  six  or  seven  miles  one  way. 

As  bearing  on  this  question,  I  would  like  to  make  this  statement : 
Profit  in  passenger  business  does  not  come  from  carrying  a  few  pas- 
sengers a  long  distance.  It  comes  from  carrying  a  great  many  pas- 
sengers a  short  distance.  That  means  filling  your  trains.  In  other 
words,  the  profit  in  the  whole  proposition  comes  from  filling  your 
trains.  The  complaint  I  have  always  had  to  make  about  American 
long  distance  trains  is  this :  On  most  of  the  high-class  trains  you 
have  a  club  car,  where  a  man  will  drink  something  and  have  refresh- 
ments; then  you  have  a  sleeping  car,  in  which  he  has  his  seat.  Then, 
on  the  rear,  the  chances  are  you  will  have  an  observation  car,  and 
he  may  sit  there.  Then,  there  is  probably  a  dining  car  on  the  train, 
and  he  has  a  seat  there.  In  other  words,  you  are  hauling  three  or 
four  seats  for  one  man,  and  he  can  only  sit  in  one  seat  at  a  time.  In 
the  suburban  business,  he  has  only  one  seat  and  he  gets  in  there  and 
you  haul  him  from  the  point  of  origin  to  where  he  gets  ofif.  That  is 
one  reason  why  I  think  suburban  business  is  more  profitable  than 
through. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is,  you  think  it  should  be,  if  properly 
handled. 

MR.  THORNTON :    Yes. 

MR.  FISHER:  Our  American  railway  men  do  not  look  at  it 
that  way  as  a  rule.    Why  is  that? 

77 


MR.  THORNTON  :  I  do  not  know.  You  go  to  the  Long  Island, 
with  which  I  was  connected  and  happen  to  be  familiar,  and  the  great 
bulk  of  that  is  suburban  business.  They  are  anxious  to  increase  it.  I 
know  they  felt  it  profitable.  Take,  for  instance,  the  suburban  busi- 
ness of  the  Pennsylvania  running  into  Broad  Street.  I  think  they 
would  tell  you  they  would  not  willingly  surrender  that  business. 

MR.  FISHER :  If  they  told  you  something  else,  what  would  you 
think? 

MR.  THORNTON:  I  would  say  they  were  either  not  telling 
the  truth,  or  should  get  a  new  general  manager. 

What  I  mean  to  say  is  unquestionable :  If  you  have  a  certain 
volume  of  suburban  business,  if  it  is  not  profitable,  there  is  some- 
thing wrong  in  the  way  it  is  handled. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  long  distance  traffic  to  which  our  American 
railroad  men  attach  such  great  importance  cannot  by  any  possibility 
use  the  capacity  of  the  rails;  it  cannot  use  a  very  large  percentage 
of  the  capacity  of  the  rails. 

MR.  THORNTON:    Obviously  not. 

MR.  FISHER:  And  I  judge  from  what  you  say  that  you  think 
it  is  a  clear  waste  not  to  use  the  capacity  of  the  rails  as  fully  as  you 
can. 

MR.  THORNTON:  Certainly.  You  have  to  maintain  your 
plant,  and  the  nearer  you  can  get  maximum  use  out  of  that,  the  nearer 
you  come. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  They  say  that  the  through  passenger  and 
freight  is  the  more  profitable. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  suburban 
business  is  more  profitable  than  the  freight  business  at  all.  but  I  do 
say  that  the  suburban  is  sufficiently  profitable  to  justify  its  being 
fostered  and  looked  after. 

MR.  FISHER :  In  connection  with  the  freight  and  passenger 
business? 

MR.  THORNTON :  Yes.  If  your  facilities  are  not  sufficient  to 
handle  both  freight  and  suburban  business,  you  had  very  much  better 
increase  those  facilities  and  get  the  maximum  profit  out  of  your  whole 
business. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  That  is  what  some  of  us  believe.  We  believe 
that  the  right  of  way  of  the  railroad  should  be  used  to  the  greatest 
capacity,  even  by  perhaps  double-decking.  Some  of  us  maintain  that 
those  rights  of  way  should  be  utilized  to  the  fullest  capacity.  If  one 
deck  is  through  passenger,  let  us  have  another  for  suburban.     Steam 

78 


railroad  men  object  to  that.    They  say  they  do  not  want  the  suburban 
— it  is  a  nuisance. 

MR.  THORNTON :  For  the  last  three  years  my  experience  has 
been  largely  with  suburban  business.  I  am  perfectly  convinced  that 
suburban  business  is  profitable.  In  fact,  we  would  be  delighted  on 
the  Great  Eastern  if  we  could  do  the  same  suburban  business  all  day 
that  we  do  from  9  to  10  o'clock.  We  would  not  have  to  worry  about 
where  the  dividends  were  coming  from.  We  are  considering  now 
the  question  of  whether  we  should  reduce  our  fares  between  10 
o'clock  and  4  o'clock  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  suburban  busi- 
ness during  the  hours  in  which  our  suburban  business  is  slack.  In 
other  words,  to  come  more  nearly  getting  the  maximum  use  of  the 
rails. 

MR.  BLOCK:  For  instance,  the  Illinois  Central  does  the  big- 
gest suburban  business  in  Chicago.  They  only  haul  their  people  in 
the  morning  and  evening.  There  is  nothing  for  them  to  do  in  the 
day  time  but  haul  empty  trains. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  In  the  talk  downstairs  I  understood  you  to  say 
that  you  thought  you  would  be  better  off  here  if  you  had  a  through 
station  instead  of  a  stub,  especially  if  that  station  could  be  connected 
through  the  heart  of  the  city,  so  you  could  run  through  trains.  Did 
I  understand  you  correctly? 

MR.  THORNTON :  Oh,  yes,  that  is  right.  I  should  say  that  we 
should  reduce  our  congestion  at  Liverpool  Street — and  it  is  very 
badly  congested— at  least -fifty  per  cent,  if  not  more,  if  we  could  run 
our  trains  through  and  find  some  outlet  beyond  our  station.  In  other 
words,  we  would  convert  this  immediately  from  a  stub  to  a  through 
station,  if  we  could. 

MR.  ARNOLD:  And  I  also  inferred  from  what  you  said  that 
you  thought  it  would  be  an  advantage  to  connect  up  with  some  other 
road  at  the  other  end  of  the  city? 

MR.  FISHER:  Provided  that  other  road  had  equivalent  traffic 
to  justify  it. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  would  do  it  anyway,  provided  our  traffic 
was  of  a  character  that  wanted  to  go  beyond,  or  there  was  a  prospect 
of  building  up  business  beyond. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  you  could  say  now  that  your  traffic  would 
like  to  go  beyond  the  present  station,  you  would  like  to  carry  that 
traffic  as  far  as  they  would  like  to  go? 

MR.  THORNTON :    I  would  like  to  get  it  away  from  here. 

MR.  FISHER:  Even  if  that  were  not  so,  if  you  thought  you 
could  develop  such  a  traffic,  you  would  be  anxious  to  do  so? 

61 


MR.  THORNTON :  Exactly.  We  would  like  to  get  rid  of  the 
congestion,  which  is  an  adherent  feature  of  every  stub  end  station. 

MR.  CARTER :  Would  the  additional  business  that  you  could 
do  through  that  pay  for  the  difference  in  cost  of  construction? 

MR.  THORNTON:  You  must  remember  that  already  there  is 
in  London  a  connecting  link  between  other  stations,  but  your  ques- 
tion is.  If  that  did  not  exist,  should  we  do  it? 

MR.  CARTER :    With  the  conditions  as  they  are. 

MR.  THORNTON :  Unquestionably.  While  we  have  not  gath- 
ered any  figures,  and  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  necessary  to  gather 
figures,  I  know  perfectly  well  if  we  could  electrify  and  connect  with 
some  of  the  Underground  systems,  it  would  be  justified  many  times 
over. 

MR.  CARTER:  That  is  not  the  question.  If  you  had  to  con- 
struct a  connection  from  this  station  to  another  one  over  the  city, 
would  the  increase  in  business  by  making  this  a  through  station  pay 
the  interest  on  the  cost  of  construction  between  the  two  stations? 

MR.  THORNTON :  You  must  remember  that  we  are  speaking 
absolutely  at  cross  purposes.  There  is  not  a  great  deal  of  traffic  be- 
tween different  stations  in  London  and  this  Liverpool  Street  Station, 
but  there  is  a  tremendous  business  in  our  suburban  line,  which  wants 
to  go  to  the  city — the  shopping  district  of  the  city. 

MR.  ARNOLD  :    That  is  it  exactly. 

MR.  THORNTON :  And  that  is  what  we  are  after.  I  do  not 
think  that  interchange  business,  purely  interchange  of  passenger  busi- 
ness, between  Liverpool  Street  and  St.  Pancras,  would  be  sufficient 
to  justify  our  building  a  tube  or  going  to  any  expense  in  that  connec- 
tion. That  may  be  a  condition  which  is  peculiar  to  London,  and  I 
question  whether  it  would  apply  to  Chicago,  because  Chicago  is  a 
great  interchange  point;  it  is  the  meeting  point  between  the  East 
and  the  West.  People  come  into  Chicago,  and,  in  many  instances,  if 
they  are  going  beyond,  either  east  or  west,  they  have  to  change  cars 
at  some  other  station.  So,  I  should  say  that  there  was  probably  a 
much  larger  interchange  of  passengers  between  stations  in  Chicago 
than  there  would  be  in  London,  because  a  man  who  comes  to  London 
comes  to  London.  Ordinarily  he  does  not  want  to  go  anywhere  else. 
London  occupies  a  most  unique  position.  Everything  in  England  is 
London.  London  is  the  great  financial  and  business  mart  of  Europe. 
People,  if  they  are  going  other  places,  their  usual  desire  is  to  come 
to  London  and  go  away  from  London.  Not  many  of  them  want  to 
go  from  some  place  west  of  London  to  some  place  east,  or,  if  they  do, 
they  break  their  journey  a  week. 

80 


MR.  BENNETT :  I  think  we  have  figured  in  Chicago  on  the 
same  basis. 

MR.  CARTER:  Practically  the  same  thing  exists  in  Chicago. 
Less  than  fifteen  per  cent  of  the  people  that  come  into  Chicago  desire 
to  continue  their  journey  without  making  a  stay  there. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  I  can  corroborate  that.  My  opinion  is  that 
•there  is  not  enough  traffic  between  the  stations  to  justify  that  expen- 
diture ;  but  that  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is :  What  kind  of 
traffic  could  be  built  up  by  through  service?  Suppose  your  station 
here  shown  on  the  map  was  connected  up  with  the  Paddington  Sta- 
tion. Suppose  that  was  originally  connected  with  that  and  these  sub- 
stations were  not  as  they  are,  but  were  originally  built  up  through 
the  heart  of  London,  even  though  independently  owned,  would  you 
think  of  cutting  up  that  section  and  moving  these  sub-stations  back 
where  they  are? 

MR.  FISHER:  If  you  didn't  have  the  connection  and  could 
develop  this  traffic  that  you  refer  to — the  local  and  mterchange — 
would  you  hesitate  to  build  it? 

MR.  THORNTON :  Not  a  bit.  In  fact,  the  thing  we  want  to 
do  is  to  give  our  passengers  continuous  service  into  the  shopping  part 
of  the  city  and  the  West  End. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  And  the  way  of  doing  that  is  by  connecting  up 
with  some  of  the  already  existing  tubes? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Does  that  not  really  mean  that  you  are  in 
favor  of  an  overlapping  service?  The  difficulty  of  co-operating  one 
schedule  with  another  road's  schedule ;  but  getting  your  passengers 
from  the  Southeastern  to  the  West  End,  or  vice  versa  from  the  Pad- 
dington up  to  the  city  would  be  obviously  a  benefit  to  both  the  pas- 
sengers and  the  railroad.  Doesn't  it  result  in  getting  your  passengers 
through,  in  the  first  place,  and,  in  the  second  place  overlapping  the 
city  for  flexibility  of  service? 

MR.  THORNTON :  There  are  a  number  of  advantages  which 
we  might  gain  from  such  a  condition.  In  the  first  place,  we  would 
relieve  the  congestion  at  Liverpool  Street,  which  is  well-nigh  un- 
bearable. In  the  second  place,  give  better  service  to  our  patrons.  In 
the  next  place,  enable  our  passengers  to  go  on  with  a  continuous  jour- 
ney without  changing  to  any  point,  substantially,  that  they  wanted 
to  reach,  instead  of  forcing  them  to  change  here  and  take  a  taxi,  bus, 
or  the  Underground  to  go  to  the  shopping  district.  Of  course,  grow- 
ing out  of  all  that  we  would  be  in  a  better  position  to  compete  with 
the  competitors — tram  lines  and  buses. 

81 


MR.  FISHER:  And  you  would  assume  that  that  increased 
traffic  which  you  would  thus  carry,  that  improved  service  which  you 
would  thus  give,  would  receive  its  due  reward  in  a  financial  way? 

MR.  THORNTON:  Undoubtedly.  I  would  not  care  to  con- 
sider electrification  if  I  could  not  make  some  such  connection.  I  con- 
sider that  is  50  per  cent  of  its  desirability — to  put  the  passengers 
down  in  the  city. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  opinions  you  are  giving  are,  so  far  as  you 
know,  the  opinions  of  your  English  staff  here? 

MR.  THORNTON:  I  think  Mr.  Randall,  who  has  grown  up 
with  this  railway  and  has  been  with  them  ever  since  it  amounted  to 
anything,  is  of  the  same  opinion.    What  do  you  say? 

MR.  RANDALL :  I  quite  agree  with  all  you  have  said  about  it, 
especially  regarding  local  traffic.  People  are  coming  from  all  direc- 
tions to  Liverpool  Street.  Liverpool  Street  is  not  their  objective. 
They  want  to  get  over  into  the  city.  If  we  could  establish  through 
service  through  to  the  West  End,  it  would  be  a  splendid  thing.  It 
would  relieve  our  congestion  here,  because  this  would  simply  become 
a  station  of  call. 

MR.  FISHER:  You  would  not  have  to  carry  the  trains  empty 
over  the  rails? 

MR.  RANDALL:  No,  certainly  not.  I  quite  agree  with  every- 
thing Mr.  Thornton  says  with  regard  to  through  running. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  as  far  as  the 
broad  principles  of  this  thing  goes,  what  I  have  said  would  be  the 
general  opinion  of  most  English  railway  officers. 

MR.   McGANN :     They  are  discussing  suburban  traffic  rather 
than  transcontinental  through  traffic? 
MR.  RANDALL:    Yes. 

MR.  THORNTON :  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  don't  know  whether 
it  could  be  done  or  not,  but  the  thing  that  the  Pennsylvania  ought  to 
Jiave  done  when  they  went  into  New  York  was,  instead  of  building 
their  line  underneath  Manhattan  Island  and  under  the  river,  to  build 
their  own  subway  down  Seventh  Avenue  and  connect  with  the  Long 
Island  at  Flatbush  Avenue,  and  run  their  through  trains  down  through 
the  city,  stop  at  the  present  station,  then  at  Wall  Street,  and  they 
would  have  skinned  the  passenger  business  to  a  finish.  Their  an- 
swer to  that  is  that  political  conditions  were  such  they  could  not  have 
gotten  any  such  franchise.  It  would  have  been  worth  untold  millions 
to  them  if  they  could  have  done  it. 

MR.  FISHER:  On  the  basis  of  only  a  fair  charge  to  the  Penn- 
sylvania for  doing  that,  it  would  have  been  worth  many  more  millions 
to  the  general  public. 

82 


MR.  RANDALL :  I  would  like  to  say  in  regard  to  through  run- 
ning, you  will  find  that  when  a  man  comes  in  on  a  bus  he  can  keep 
straight  through  to  the  West  End,  and  when  he  comes  to  Liverpool 
he  has  to  change  to  a  bus  for  the  West  End.  It  would  be  better  in 
two  ways — from  a  working  point  of  view  and  the  point  of  view  of 
revenue. 

MR.  FISHER:  Now,  I  understand  that  your  road  handles  ap- 
proximately fifty  per  cent  of  passengers  and  fifty  per  cent  freight? 

MR.  RANDALL:    Speaking  broadly. 

MR.  FISHER :  And  you  handle  your  due  share  of  through 
traffic? 

MR.  RANDALL:    Yes,  main  line  traffic. 

MR.  FISHER:  Do  you  see  any  interference  or  conflict  of  inter- 
ests between  the  development  of  this  suburban  traffic  in  this  through 
routing  principle  we  have  been  talking  about  and  the  proper  devel- 
opment of  the  freight  and  through  line  passenger  traffic?  Do  you 
see  any  conflict? 

MR.  RANDALL :  I  think,  when  you  get  it  mixed  up  with  your 
main  line  or  freight,  it  becomes  a  different  thing. 

MR.  FISHER:  I  mean,  do  you  see  any  conflict  between  the 
proper  development  of  your  main  line  and  freight  traffic  and  the 
proper  development  of  this  suburban  traffic  in  the  way  we  have  been 
discussing? 

MR.  RANDALL:  No.  One  is  independent  of  the  other  to  a 
great  extent. 

MR.  THORNTON :    Except  the  question  of  money. 

MR.  McGANN :  Is  there  not  a  different  principle  underlying  a 
freight  business  and  through  passenger  business  and  a  suburban  busi- 
ness? In  other  words,  we  fall  into  the  habit  of  having  terminals  at 
certain  points  where  population  rests.  That  was  before  we  had  a 
suburban  business,  and  we  have  a  freight  business  and  passenger 
business  that  terminates  there.  That  was  all  right.  Now  we  have 
another  phase  of  it,  and  that  it  the  suburban  business,  where  we  want 
to  go  right  through,  and  the  question  of  a  terminal  or  passenger 
business.  That  is,  a  freight  terminal  and  passenger  business  should 
be  eliminated  when  considering  the  other  questions  of  the  passenger 
business.  Take  the  Pennsylvania  road  from  Georgetown  to  the  Navy 
Yard.  There  is  no  question  about  it,  it  is  right  in  town ;  they  drop 
passengers  in  the  heart  of  town  and  take  another  load  to  the  Navy 
Yard.  If  you  had  a  passenger  business  and  freight  business,  you 
would  have  an  entirely  different  thing  to  consider. 

83 


MR.  FISHER :  Yes,  but  just  a  minute.  The  word  you  used  was 
a  little  unfortunate,  Mr.  McGann.  Not  "eliminate,"  but  see  that  the 
two  do  not  conflict — co-ordinate  them.  There  is  no  reason  why  you 
should  not  develop  your  freight,  passenger  and  suburban,  and  develop 
the  through  traffic  that  wants  to  go  through  without  hurting  any. 

MR.  McGANN:  I  had  in  mind  the  question  of  Mr.  Carter.  On 
the  other  hand,  you  introduce  the  other  feature,  which  is  a  freight 
business  and  an  entirely  different  proposition. 

MR.  FISHER:  Oh,  yes,  the  only  point  is,  I  want  to  bring  out 
this :  That  there  is  no  conflict  if  you  develop  the  suburban  business 
in  a  certain  way.  That  does  not  mean  you  are  to  conflict  with  your 
through  line  and  freight  at  all.  It  merely  means  you  are  going 
to  get  the  highest  efficiency  out  all  tlirough.  If  you  reach  a  point 
in  the  development  of  your  road  where  you  have  not  capacity  to 
take  care  of  all  three  classes,  then,  of  course,  the  only  thing  to  do  is 
to  cut  down  on  some  one  class  or  enlarge  your  facilities. 

MR.  McGANN  :  If  you  had  your  extensions,  you  were  not  going 
to  count  on  changing  your  freight  terminals. 

MR.  FISHER:    Right. 

MR.  McGANN:    That  is  what  I  wanted  to  emphasize. 

MR.  THORNTON:  In  other  words,  it  comes  down  to  this:  If 
you  are  building  a  railway  which  is  to  handle  exclusively  freight, 
that  is  one  kind  of  a  railway.  If  you  are  building  a  railway  which  is 
to  handle  exclusively  passengers,  that  is  another  kind.       • 

MR.  FISHER:    Yes. 

MR.  THORNTON :  If  you  are  building  a  railway  and  must  pro- 
vide facilities  to  handle  suburban  passenger  business,  through  pas- 
senger business  and  freight  business,  that  requires  a  different  kind  of 
a  railway;  but  there  is  not  any  reason,  assuming  that  you  have  the 
money  and  can  provide  the  facilities,  why  you  cannot  build  a  railroad 
which  will  handle  all  three  with  perfect  satisfaction. 

MR.  FISHER:  Don't  you  go  further  than  that?  Isn't  it  ex- 
ceedingly probable,  if  not  almost  certain,  speaking  generally,  that  the 
most  profitable  and  practicable  road  is  the  one  which  does  handle  all 
three? 

MR.  THORNTON  :  To  be  sure.  The  man  who  can  sell  the  most 
goods  is  the  one  who  can  make  the  most  money,  and  the  railroad 
which  can  handle  the  most  business,  maximum  of  business,  and  pas- 
sengers, is  the  one  which  will  be  the  most  profitable. 

MR.  RANDALL:  Freight  traffic  travels  at  night— a  good  deal 
of  it — and  keeps  your  road  busy. 

84 


MR.  HOOKER:  To  what  extent  would  you  say  that  extra 
tracks  would  be,  in  general,  required? 

MR.  THORNTON :  That  is  such  a  broad  question  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  answer  it  without  some  specifications.  It  depends  en- 
tirely on  the  volume  of  each  kind  of  business.  I  don't  think  I  can  an- 
swer so  broad  a  question  as  that  in  a  way  that  would  convey  any 
intelligence. 

MR.  FISHER:  You  go  on  the  assumption  that  if  more  tracks 
were  needed  they  would  be  provided? 

MR.  THORNTON  :  Yes,  assuming  that  they  were  not  terrifically 
expensive.  You  know  how  much  your  business  is  and  how  much 
the  additional  tracks  would  cost.  Anybody  can  strike  a  balance 
between  the  two.  In  the  laying  out  of  any  railway  the  tracks  should 
be  laid  out  so  they  are  interchangeable.  For  instance,  on  the  Long 
Island  Railroad  we  had  a  six-track  electrical  system.  Three  of  those 
were  used  in  one  direction  and  three  the  other.  They  were  all  inter- 
changeable. You  could  switch  a  train  from  one  to  the  other.  It  is 
a  great  mistake  to  build  a  railway  and  absolutely  tie  yourself  up  to 
certain  character  of  traffic  on  certain  tracks.  As  nearly  as  possible 
you  want  to  make  them  interchangeable. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  all  consistent  with  the  theory  of  using 
special  tracks  for  special  traffic  as  a  general  rule? 

MR.  THORNTON:  Yes,  and  if  you  are  confronted  with  an 
emergency,  you  have  something  up  your  sleeve. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  That  is  all.  You  want  to  be  in  the  position 
so  that  you  can  get  out  of  an  emergency. 

MR.  THORNTON :  If  you  have  three  servants  in  your  house, 
you  want  them  to  do  any  kind  of  work.  The  butler  is  the  butler,  but 
if  you  want  him  to  do  something  else,  he  does  it. 

MR.  CARTER :  Of  course,  where  you  have  double  tracks  it  is 
different. 

MR.  THORNTON  :  I  operated  a  railroad  that  had  a  very  heavy 
freight  business,  double-track  railway,  and  we  used  to  reverse  the 
direction  of  trains;  the  freight  on  one  track  would  be  passed  by  a 
passenger  in  the  same  direction  on  the  other  track. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  Most  rights  of  way  in  the  City  of  Chicago  are 
sufficient — more  than  two  tracks,  some  of  them  four,  some  six,  and 
some  more.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  instant  that  these  rights  of  way 
will  accommodate  tracks,  the  rails  should  be  utilized  to  the  full  ca- 
pacity ;  kept  as  hot  as  possible. 

MR.  CARTER :    Always. 

86 


MR.  ARNOLD :  When  you  reach  the  point  where  there  are  two 
or  four,  or  six  or  eight  rails,  and  they  will  not  take  the  traffic,  I  think 
the  City  of  Chicago  would  be  justified  in  allowing  you  to  lay  another 
deck  to  serve  the  public. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  think,  of  course,  whatever  the  rights  of 
the  city  may  be,  it  ought  to  look  with  favor  upon  anything  which  in- 
creases the  use  of  the  rights  of  way  of  railways. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  In  other  words,  utilize  the  investment  which  is 
there  to  the  greatest  extent  possible,  in  order  that  the  service  may  be 
at  the  maximum  point  and  the  fixed  charges  at  the  lowest. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  don't  know  whether  this  would  work  or 
not,  but  I  have  always  thought  it  would.  I  have  always  thought  that 
if  all  the  terminals  of  the  various  railways  in  Chicago  were  under  the 
direction  of  one  individual,  one  organization ;  if  the  railroads  would 
say,  "Now,  the  Pennsylvania  will  cut  its  line  off  here,  the  North- 
western there — in  other  words,  draw  a  line  around  Chicago,  and  every- 
thing inside  that  line  would  be  operated  by  a  terminals  company  with 
one  manager,  I  think  a  lot  of  friction  would  be  eliminated. 

MR.  ARNOLD :  There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  The  great  diffi- 
culty would  be  to  get  that  situation.  Any  man  having  his  own  prop- 
erty does  not  want  to  give  it  up  unless  he  thinks  he  is  getting  some- 
thing. 

MR.  CARTER:  The  question  of  government  ownership,  in 
which  there  would  be  a  great  many  of  those  things  corrected,  and 
the  duplication  of  service,  trains  leaving  the  city  all  at  the  same  hour, 
all  for  the  same  destination,  and  most  of  them  partially  loaded — 

MR.  FISHER:  It  is  not  necessarily  a  question  of  government 
ownership  at  all.  As  we  have  seen  at  Manchester  and  Liverpool,  that 
is  not  the  question  at  all.  They  have  at  Manchester  a  large  enter- 
prise, most  efficiently  conducted,  which  is  not  governmental  at  all  in 
any  such  sense  as  we  use  the  word. 

I  think  that  Mr.  Thornton's  thought  is  merely  that  there  might 
be  an  agency  which  would  be  only  subject  to  that  general  regulation 
which  we  have  over  all  railroad  enterprises,  but  which  would  be  a 
co-operative  organization  among  the  railroads. 

MR.  CARTER :    V  you  could  get  th'em  to  do  it. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  am  perfectly  convinced  that  government 
ownership  and  operation  in  any  country  is  a  hideous  failure. 

MR.  CARTER:    Sure. 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  am  convinced  that  government  ownership 
in  America  would  result  in  generally  inefficient  service  and  disaster 

86 


of  all  kinds.  There  is  one  country  in  Europe  which  has  operated  its 
railroads  from  the  time  they  were  built,  and  it  has  just  about  come 
to  the  conclusion  that,  due  to  the  political  aspect  of  it,  government 
operation  is  a  fizzle.  The  only  government  which  I  know  of  that  op- 
erates its  railways  successfully  is  the  German  government,  and  they 
are  operated  successfully  because  they  are  operated  as  a  fundamental 
part  of  the  military  establishment.  They  do  not  care  a  damn  for  the 
public ;  they  run  the  thing  to  suit  themselves.  The  only  thing  that 
I  know  that  any  government  has  ever  operated  successfully  is  the 
post.  How  well  the  post  might  be  done  by  a  private  corporation  we 
do  not  know,  because  no  private  corporation  has  ever  had  a  crack  at 
it.  I  do  know,  if  you  want  an  example  of  what  government  ownership 
will  do,  I  will  simply  advise  you  to  use  English  telephones  a  few 
times. 

MR.  ARNOLD :     I  don't  think  there  is  a  man  here  advocating 
government  ownership.     You  won't  step  on  anybody's  toes. 
MR.  FISHER:    What  is  that,  Mr.  Arnold? 
MR.  ARNOLD :    I  knew  I  would  get  a  rise  there. 
MR.  FISHER:    The  only  thing  I  object  to  is  your  speaking  for 
some  of  the  rest  of  us. 

MR.  THORNTON :  The  point  is  that  we  believe,  as  we  just 
stated,  that  some  co-operative  arrangement,  as  Mr.  Fisher  pointed 
out,  would  get  us  some  result  in  Chicago  as  we  do  not  now  have- 
namely,  get  better  service  in  all  directions,  not  only  suburban,  but 
freight  and  through  passenger  service — and  we  would  get  the  invest- 
ment that  is  now  there  utilized  to  much  better  advantage  to  the  public 
as  well  as  the  railroads  themselves.  What  we  are  fundamentally 
after  is  the  co-operative  spirit  among  the  railroads — not  government 
ownership. 

MR.  BLOCK:    Government  supervision. 

MR.  FISHER :  We  have  a  certain  amount  of  government  super- 
vision now,  but  we  want  more  co-operation. 

MR.  RANDALL:  Instead  of  running  six  trains  to  the  same 
point  at  the  same  time,  half  full,  you  would  run  three  full? 

MR.  FISHER :  Don't  you  think,  whether  we  are  going  to  have 
government  ownership  or  not  depends  very  largely  on  the  intelligence 
with  which  the  existing  railroad  interests  demonstrate  that  they  can 
meet  just  such  problems  as  we  are  discussing  here  now.  That  is  to 
say,  if  it  is  as  clear  as  you  think  it  is  that  there  is  a  great  waste  in 
the  situation  in  Chicago,  where  26  railroads  come  in,  operating  dif- 
ferent railroads,  where  there  is  great  improvement  in  service  to  be 

87 


gained  by  co-operating-,  if  selfish  interests  or  want  of  intelligence  fails 
to  produce  that,  we  are  more  likely  to  have  government  ownership? 

MR.  THORNTON :  I  think  that  is  true.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  present  situation  which  seems  to  confront  the  railways  in  America 
was  brought  about,  in  my  judgment,  by  the  lack  of  foresight  on  the 
part  of  the  previous  generation  of  managers  and  directors. 

MR.  FISHER:    Of  railways? 

MR.  THORNTON:  Of  railways.  There  were  abuses  of  all 
kinds.  Unquestionably,  if  the  railway  managers  of  America  had  real- 
izd  where  they  were  headed,  and  corrected  it  of  their  own  volition, 
it  would  not  have  been  done  for  them. 

MR.  HOOKER:  The  plan  that  you  recommended  was  officially 
recommended  for  Boston  five  years  ago  for  the  freight  business. 


88 


MAP   OF  TORONTO. 
89 


MAP  OF  MONTREAL. 


90 


MAP   OF   BOSTON. 


91 


MAP    OP   NEW   YORK   CITY. 


n 


MAP    OF   LONDON. 


93 


MAP  OF  PARIS. 


94 


MAP    OF    BERLIN. 


'Jb 


<^^^, 


APPENDIX  "B" 
STATISTICS 


APPENDIX  "B" 
STATISTICS 

Table  No.  1 

PASSENGER  TERMINALS 

PRINCIPAL  AMERICAN  CITIES 

No.  of 

AVERAGE  NUMBER      TRAINS  AV'R'GE NUMBER  OF 

of  TRAINS  DAILY         Busiest  PASSENGERS  DAILY 

CITY —                 Thru.      Sub.       Total            Hour  Thru.        Sub.          Total 

BOSTON 

South    Sta 332         511  843  87  125,000 

North    Sta 119         458  577  61  22,000      66,000        88,0C0 

NEW  YORK 

Grand    Cent...   198  223  421  56  19,123      46,512        65,725 

Penna.  R.  R...   146  254         400  40  12,241      38,094        50,335 

PHILADELPHIA 

Penna.  R.  R...  352  217  569  51  34,381      20,380        54,761 

WASHINGTON 

Union 252  252  20  13,110  13,110 

PITTSBURGH 

Penna.  R.  R...   185  301  486  45  3,712      35,854        39,566 

ST.  LOUIS 

Union 270  80  350  64  20,000      15.000        35,000 

KANSAS  CITY 

Union 214  214  29  28,000  28,000 

CHICAGO 

Northwestern..  121  189  310  38  16,402  33,046  49,448 

Union 163  117  280  30  19,274  14,778  34,052 

La   Salle    76  117  193  25  9,801  25,455  35,256 

Dearborn     ....  102  47  149  23  8,241  8,643  16,884 

Grand  Cent....  30  4  34  6  3,091  470  3,561 

Central    85  85  11  12,729  12,729 

TOTAL- 
CHICAGO    ...  577  474       1,051  133  69,538      82,392      151,930 

I.   C.  SUB 293  293  35  41,217        41,217 

GRAND  TOTAL- 
CHICAGO     ...  577  767       1,344  168  69,538    123,609      193,147 


96 


CJ 

•Ci. 

6 

>j~-  O  Q  fo  SN 

uo  CN  0\  On  CM 

o 

■^  \o\o  t^ 

<n 

"^ 

^:=3- 

1— ( 

0\ 

_« 

O  V 

3 

^^ 

H 

f^TT 

t^  O  VO  ^p  '-< 

CNJ  t-H  Tj-  -^  T-( 

o 

t^r^  CO  PO 

o 

r^   »S 

■^ 

fo           vo 

On 

-aq  - 

1— t 

^ 

t-. 

o 

f**  S   vO 

DC  O-^  t^^ 

eg  t-i  ■<+  -^ —1 

o 

r^  CO  fo  ■* 

r^ 

*•    u-j 

"^ 

fO           u-> 

C\ 

^    - 

1—1 

•— I    CNl  i— '  CM  ■— CM  CM 


0\ 


cc 


CO  Tl-  00  CM  LO  '— I  to 

T-l    "-•    »-H  I— I 


»— I   »-<   I— 1 1— I 


to 


en 
in 

< 

Pl, 

o 

o 

< 
u 

) — I 

u 


■^  <i  _^ 


-HOtXr-lO   I  ON 
.-.     ^H  CO      I  "1 


C/5 

t<i 

iz; 

l::^ 

H- 1 
< 

o  *:  CN 

—  o\o— 'O 

1  00 

—           i->  CO 

1  lo 

« 

Co^ 

H 

C/5 

< 

>» 

Silt-o 

:£2a:£j;^ 

1  '- 

2 

h-H 

P 

gc,- 

1   00 

^ 

u 

O 

fii 

(U 

Ci^     . 

H 

1^ 

^^3 

^.x:  ^ 

--  T-H  Cm  .— 1  i-i 

1  CM 

1   00 

l-c 

o 


< 


Q 


^ 

^ 


P4 


t^'  rj  1^  pq  o3 

c^'  -■  u  u  U 


< 

O 


OOOOO    Ice        COfOOCMO'^iO    I  Tl- 
CM  CO    I  LO  •-'  I  CM 


OOOOn     I   O^        OOcoO^O-^iO     I   CO 
CM  CO     1  LO  >— I  1  (M 


r^cocoio    I-/.       occOr-iooOiot^oo   lo 

i-H  .-1       I     C^.  .—1  I    lO 


r^cocoio    \  -n      occo>-'000"Oi>xOs   ic^J 


CO 


t/i  H-;  >h"  p^' 
1-5  U  ^:  U 


H 
O 
H 


Pi 


fc 


.OW 


P^^, 
^ 


'A 

oaoa 
<  u  U  cJ  U  cj  d  ^ 


< 

H 

O 


-2; 

o 


w 

H 

CO 

W 

H 
P^ 
O 


o 


w 

1-1 

< 

CO 

< 
-1 


P^ 

o 

pq 

< 
W 
Q 


97 


00 


0\       5 


O    . 


^rj-^vo   loo       "^lot^tx 


vocM-^vo    loo        "^irjr^vO 


^ 


^ 


m 
■^ 


^ 


T3 

<u 

3 

_c 

c 
o 
U 

I 
in 

< 

H 

< 


P=5 
W 
H 


a 

Q 

<u 
o, 

u 

B 

3 


cs 
> 


Pi 

w 

w    < 

m 

m 

< 

Pi 

O 

o 
< 
u 

I — I 

u 


CM         OOOO    I  o 


M       oooo   I  o 


;^  tr^oort-vo 

1  ^ 

■*ir3rxt>. 

1  "^ 

g-^* 

1      T-H 

«— (       >— ( 

1  Tj- 

o 

^  .• 

li;  i:  ^oo-*^ 

1  "^ 

■*vOl^  VO 

1  ^' 

E-.^ 

1    '"^ 

.— 1        >— 1 

1     Tt- 

o 


Pi 
pi 

CQ  pq  U  CM 
H 

•z 

W 

u 
Q 


H 
O 
H 


>. 

« 


a! 


12; 
W 


C^ 

J 

U 1^'  ^  H-; 


^ 


Oh 

o 

Q 

< 
(A 


00 


00 


0\ 


c 


to 

•-J 

C 


98 


ro 

^ 

^ 

O 

h-, 

'4. 

O 

<o 

E^ 

ja 

(4 

o 


— '  oi  00  in  ^ 

CO  >o  r^  \0  <^ 
vo  O  lO  tJ-  \o 
oo'cvTo'vo'cm" 


O   Q   00 


00 1>. 


^t-H     ^     f^ 


vO  t>.  O  00  <^  o 


W 
CO 
CO 
< 

Oh 

<^ 

I — I     Q. 

^^ 

We 

Hi 

^^ 

CO 
< 

PL. 


o 

o 

< 
u 

I — I 

u 


o 

'A 


^ 


11^ 


00  «o  O  f^io  O 
CO    On        ^CNl 

(tT  crTc^f 

CO  -^ 


oj  OOiM  coo 


CO    CO  O  >— "  vo  O 
CO   t^Ot^CNl  O 


Q   00  lO  CO  -^  CO 
■^   \0  O"^  CO  "O 


Q   OLO  OnO 


)  LO  o  O 


lO    ro 

CO    .-H 


<M 


r^  On 


CM 


"2  r^OOpN 


CO   OOO  Ot^ 
^^00  O 

^  oo"         vo" 


CO   .-<  O  OOO 


^  ore 

lO    fO( 


^  ■*  CO  ■*  O 
33"  I^  U-)  0\  oo 
0^_  >— ( lo  ^  CO 


\0  CO"T-'^t^JcOOOCOlO 
>0  O'^OnvO'— iCM^VO 
Cs)_  ^-  Tt  O  00  On_co  ^  -^ 

iW    ■— T  Tf  Tj^  CO  r-T 

CO 


Csl  CO       O       O  •* 

fM    OOOO'OQO^CO 
t^  ^        O       vo  ■<*■ 


OOOOcoOioio 

u-j  .— I  Tt-  CO 

t>.        0\        CO  VO 


00   oOt^O       OOVO 


^88So8°; 


I  coio 


cOM?':9r^OOOCOO 


00  ,— ( -^  CO  00 


CO 
CO  CO  00 


On   ^ 


CO 


■*  OOI^-* 
oo  ^  r^  0\  CO 
00  in-^'^O 
\6  cm' 


CM  O 

^   OQOO 


CO  OO  OO 

oo" 


00  o     OO 


8°88 


^  OOr^  ■* 

■rf   ^        0\  CO 

oo"  cm' 


'-^    lO  QTf  O 

iD  >o  ■^  OOCO 

CO     r-TlO  W" 


CM 

CO  OOOO 


O   OOOO 


00  OOOO 


S8888 


1—1  irj 

o  ^ 


■*_^oooo 


cm'  ■^ 


O   CM 


of 


e^ 


^"i^ 


CO 


^ 


« 


Ci^ 


« 


>,' 


e^ 


^ 
X 


>, 


a 


p:i 


hJ  pi;' 


;PiP^ 


CO 


CO 

CO 

=a 


p^ 


d:^:^HH- 


2 

Pi 

W 

^  CO 

-  X 

^  Pi  ^ 
O  2 


2 

o 


w 

CO 

< 
h-1 


O 

PQ 

P^ 
< 
w 

Q 


< 
H 

W 

u 

Q 

iz; 
< 

O 


< 

H 

W 
U 


Q 

;z; 

< 


99 


CO 

CO 

'^ 

0\ 


^ 

•^ 


On 

^' 

CM 


ID 

CO 


c 

03 
U 

3 
CO 


u  ^ 


Co 


O 


Table  No.  4. 


CHICAGO  PASSENGER  TERMINALS— MAIL 
Average  Number  of  Sacks  Daily 


STATION 
NORTHWESTERN. 

UNION 


RAILROAD 
.C.  &  N.  W.  Ry.. 


Through 
Trains 
.  9,178 


.P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry... 
P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry... 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 


,  8,060 
,   1,580 

.15,084 
,  19,425 
,      844 


LA  SALLE.. 


TOTAL 44,993 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 22,650 

C.  I.  &  S.  R.  R 40 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R 220 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 2,135 


TOTAL 25,045 


DEARBORN. 


.A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry. 
C.  &  O.  R.  R... 
C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R. 
C.  L  &  L.  Ry.... 
C.  &  W.  I.  R.  R. 
C.  &  E.  R.  R.... 
G.  T.  W.  Ry.  . . 
Wabash  R.  R.   . 


2,618 

47 

8,251 

790 

0 

750 

1,592 

473 


TOTAL 14,521 


'  GRAND  CENTRAL. 


.B.  &  O.  R.  R 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R. 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 

P.  M.  R.  R 


785 

0 

325 

796 


CENTRAL.... 


TOTAL 1,906 

.C.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 1,365 

M.  C.  R.  R 1,497 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry...  1,016 

L  C.  R.  R 3,299 


TOTAL 7,177 


RANDOLPH I.  C.  R.  R.  Suburban. 

TOTAL  ALL  STATIONS 


0 


Suburban 
Trains 

1,009 

25 
0 

252 

25 

0 


302 

450 

0 

0 

79 


529 

0 
0 

18 
0 
0 
0 
0 

11 


29 

0 
0 
0 
0 


0 
0 
0 
0 


0 


465 


TOTAL 
10,187 

8,085 

1,580 

15,336 

19,450 

844 

45,295 

23,100 

40 

220 

2,214 

25,574 

2,618 

47 

8,269 

790 

0 

750 

1,592 

484 

14,550 

785 

0 

325 

796 

1,906 

1,365 
1,497 
1,016 
3,299 

7,177 

465 


102,820 


2,334    105,154 


100 


Table  No.  5 

CHICAGO   PASSENGER  TERMINALS— BAGGAGE 
Average  Numljer  of  Pieces  Daily 

Through    Suburban 
STATION  RAILROAD  Trains         Trains      TOTAL 

NORTHWESTERN C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 4,928  976  5,904 

UNION P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 827  12  839 

.      P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 760  0  760 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 2,141  119  2,260 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 2,480  185  2,665 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 809  0  809 

TOTAL 7,017  316  7,333 

LA  SALLE L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 1,306  25  1,331 

C.  I.  &  S.  R.  R 56  0  56 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R 375  0  375 

C.  R.  L  &  P.  Ry 993  40  1,033 

TOTAL 2,730  65  2,795 

DEARBORN A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry 550  0  550 

C.  &  O.  R.  R 7?,  0  72 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 688  0  688 

C.  L  &  L.  Ry 253  0  253 

C.  &  W.  I.  R.  R 0  8  8 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 138  0  138 

G   T.  W.  Ry 902     .  0  902 

Wabash  R.  R 511  0  511 

TOTAL 3,115 

GRAND  CENTRAL B.  &  O.  R.  R '. 293 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R 0 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 149 

P.  M.  R.  R 818 

TOTAL 1.260 

CENTRAL C.  C  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 296 

M.  C.  R.  R 1,157 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry...  274 

I.  C.  R.  R 884 

TOTAL 2,611 

RANDOLPH I.  C.  Suburban  0 

TOTAL  ALL  STATIONS -21,661  1,398  23,059 


8 

3,123 

0 

293 

12 

12 

0 

149 

0 

818 

12 

1,272 

0 

296 

0 

1,157 

0 

274 

0 

884 

0 

2,611 

21 

21 

101 


Table  No.  6 


CHICAGO  PASSENGER  TERMINALS— EXPRESS 

Average  Number  of  Tons  per  Day 

Through    Suburban 
STATION  RAILROAD  Trains         Trains      TOTAL 

NORTHWESTERN C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 311  46  357 


UNION. 


.P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry... 
P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.. 

C.  B.  &Q.  R.  R 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 

TOTAL 


134 

70 

391 

167 

25 


9 
0 

21 

18 

0 


143 

70 

412 

185 

25 


787 


48 


835 


LA  SALLE. 


.L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 

C.  I.  &  S.  R.  R 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R. 
C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 


191 
11 
11 

141 


TOTAL 354 


4 
0 
0 

12 


16 


195 
11 
11 

153 


370 


DEARBORN. 


.A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry. 

C.  &  O.  R.  R 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R... 
C.  I.  &  L.  Ry.... 
C.  &  W.  L  R.  R.. 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 

Wabash  R.  R.   . . 

TOTAL 


29 
16 
80 
42 
0 
112 
34 
51 


0 
0 

1 

0 

10 

0 

0 

1 


29 

16 
81 
42 
10 
112 
34 
52 


364 


12 


376 


GRAND  CENTRAL. 


,B.  &  O.  R.  R 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R.. 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 

P.  M.  R.  R 


51 

0 

15 

67 


TOTAL 133 


0 
2 
0 
0 


51 

2 

IS 

67 


135 


CENTRAL.. 


.C.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 

M.  C.  R.  R 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry. 
[.  C.  R.  R 

TOTAL 


RANDOLPH I.  C.  Suburban 


14 

221 

14 

121 


370 


0 


TOTAL  FOR  ALL  STATIONS 2.319 


0 

0 
0 
0 


0 
9 


133 


14 

221 

14 
121 


370 


2,452 


102 


1  "^ 

■g  \0  C^ '-' ■*  \0 -"-i 
■^  rt  Tj- lO  »o  lO  >^ 

,^  —  (^  ^H  ^-      ^H 

r— H 

^r^  lo  o  ^  "^  O 
."S  lo  ro  r^  r^  f^  r^ 

a  fo  00  ro  I— 1 1— 1  po 

CO 

CM 

0\ 


Ci  O  r^  ro  •*  On  OO  On  1 

»<= 

"^  "3  -.  r^  lo  -^  o  >0  r^ 

•*i  ^00O\t^>JTpi^ 
^j  '^i — ^Ov^ioioOn'— ' 

^ 


0\   "^ 

CO   )Q 


o 


H 


< 


w 

H 

Pi 

W 

o 

w 

en 
en 
< 

Ph 

O 
O 

< 

u 

I — I 

X 
u 


■  VO  00  '-'  MD  M3  CO 

'  ID ,— I  cj  n  i-o  >— < 

>CM  ro  .-H  ^^    ^ 


cC  Q 


;a-Tj-  CO  lO  CO  CM  -^ 
■S  O  CO  0\  CM  tv.  r-i 

ui  t^'  C\f  co"  •— I  O^f 


rT-.   ^ 

^  S 


"3  CO  '-I  O  O  CO  CO 

O  (N  CO  CO  '-'  CM  00 
^COCMCM^ 


^O  t^  \0  •*  '— I  On 
^^QioOO^OCM 

c  -^  -^  c^i  00  ID  •>._ 
Cli  oT  Lo"  <ji  no"  co'  cvT 

^  Tj-  CO  CO  >— '         ^- 


O     Q -rl- vO  CO  CM  ■^  >— I 

CovS>   ^^STN^OO'i-cOCO 
^^  e<  t~,  CM  CM  T-H  r-H 


:2; 


w 


-Co  O  CO  On  ^O  ID 
•~.—  ooo^^  cooo 
13  CO  CM  .-H  ^ 


< 

t^p:i^^<<^ 

02;<wpiw 

103 


^ 


00 

CO 

o 

co" 
CM 


^ 


CM_ 
co" 


O 

o 


CO 
ID 

o 


CM 


< 
O 


NO 

o 


CO 

T— I 

'3 


3 

X. 
u 
en 


On 
CM 

J3 

c 

o 

?^ 

< 

TS 
V 

P3 

U3 

Pi 

^ 

P 

in 

pq 

1h 

P 

S 

CO 

tat) 

Ph 

H 

J?: 

w 

•4-> 

u 

o 

7^ 


CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

INBOUND  OUTBOUND 

RAILROAD                       Cars  Tons  Cars  Tons 

A.  T.  &  S.  E.  Ry 15  101  148  1,053 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 54  430  56  482 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R 40  250  48  406 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 24  150  67  330 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 40  191  110  712 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 71  681  176  1,009 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 18  150  50  300 

C.  L  &  L.  Ry 45  206  45  217 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 120  553  191  832 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 236  1,245  255  1,554 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 51  333  115  668 

C.  W.  P.  &  S.  Ry........   2  25  1  10 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 100  800  55  325 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 74  637  48  305 

I.  C  R.  R 145  1,020  321  2,092 

I.  N.  Ry 0  0  31  223 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 143  1,115  138  872 

M.  C.  R.  R 95  670  110  812 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry. .      28  158  54  285 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R. . .      50  300  19  103 

P.  M.  R.  R 20  110  23  115 

P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 72  600  70  576 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 83  584  86  697 

Wabash  R.  R 65  500  83  550 

TOTALS 1,591  10,809  2,300  14,528 

NOTE:     Figures  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 


Table 

No.  8 

TOTAL 

Cars 

Tons 

163 

1,154 

110 

912 

88 

656 

91 

480 

150 

903 

247 

1,690 

68 

450 

90 

423 

311 

1,385 

491 

2,799 

166 

1,001 

3 

35 

155    . 

1,125 

122 

942 

466 

3,112 

31 

223 

281 

1,987 

205 

1,482 

82 

443 

69 

403 

43 

225 

142 

1,176 

169 

1,281 

148 

1,050 

3,891        25,337 


CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS  Table  No.  9 
DAILY  HOUSE  FREIGHT  BUSINESS 

In  Territory  East  of  Desplaines  Street,  from  18th  Street  to  Chicago  Avenue 

Car  Cap'y 

INBOUND      OUTBOUND  TOTAL  of  House 

RAILROAD                         Cars     Tons          Cars     Tons  Cars  Tons  Tracks 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry 15   101      65   450  80  551  118 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 54   430     56   482  110  912  116 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 24   150     67   330  91  480  141 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 40   191     110   712  150  903  163 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 71   681     171   973  242  1,654  273 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 18   150     50   300  68  450  46 

C.  L  &  L.  Ry 45   206     45   217  90  423  39 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 120   553     201   832  311  1,385  237 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 128   691     253  1,545  381  2,236  364 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 45   300     100   550  145  850  200 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 100   800     55   325  155  1,125  80 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 74   637     48   305  122  942  80 

L  C.  R.  R 90   515     230  1,400  320  1,915  272 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 123  1,020     130   780  253  1,800  147 

M.  C.  R.  R 95   670     110   812  205  1,482  143 

M.  St.  P.&S.  S.  M.  Ry..   28   158     54   285  82  443  60 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R...   50   300      19   103  69  403  54 

P.  M.  R.  R 20   110     23   115  43  225  29 

P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry....  69   589     35   347  104  936  87 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 63   520     73        662  136  1,182  210 

Wabash  R.  R 65   500     83   550  148  1,050  171 

TOTALS 1,337  9,272    1,978  12,075  3,305  21,347  3,030 

NOTE:  Figures  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 

104 


Table  No.  10 
CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 
DAILY  HOUSE  FREIGHT  BUSINESS 
In  Territory  East  of  Desplaines  Street  from  18th  Street  to  Chicago  Avenue 


INBOUND 

DISTRICT                          Cars  Tons 
North  of  Chicago  River, 
East  of  North  Branch. 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 3  30 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 10  67 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 46  222 

TOTALS 59  319 

Desplaines  St.  to  River 
Madison  to  Chicago  Avenue. 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 110  486 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 82  469 

P.  C.'C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 69  589 

TOTALS 261  1,544 

Desplaines  Street  to  River, 

Madison  to  12th  Street. 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 24  150 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 64  454 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 63  520 

TOTALS 151  1,124 


OUTBOUND 
Cars    Tons 


4 

7 

83 


174 

100 

35 


32 

66 
505 


94       603 


706 
590 
347 


309     1.643 


275     1,618 


Car  Cap'y 
TOTAL     of  House 
Cars     Tons      Tracks 


7 

17 

129 


62 
133 

727 


153       922 


284 
182 
104 


1,192 

1,059 

936 


570     3,187 


426     2,742 


8 

48 
86 


142 


182 

122 

87 


391 


67 

330 

91 

480 

141 

162 

856 

226 

1,310 

207 

46 

432 

109 

952 

157 

505 


12th  Street  to  18th  Street 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 

C.  M.  &  St.   P.  Ry 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry 

TOTALS 35 

Harrison  to  18th  Street. 

A.  T.   &   S.   F.   Ry 15 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 51 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 40 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 18 

C.   L   &  L.   Ry 45 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 45 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 100 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 74 

L.   S.   &  M.   S.   Ry 123 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R..  50 

P.  M.  R.  R 20 

Wabash  R.  R 65 

TOTALS 646 

Lake  Front. 

I.    C.   R.   R 90 

M.  C.  R.  R 95 

TOTALS 185 


,.   7 

..   0 

0 

227 
0 
0 
0 

158 

9 

10 
70 
27 

54 

117 

60 
450 
230 
285 

16 
10 
70 
27 
82 

344 
60 
450 
230 
443 

66 

7 

156 

..   0 

..  28 

53 
179 

385 


1,185 


170     1,122 


205     1,527 


340     2,212 


525     3,397 


461 


101 

65 

450 

80 

551 

118 

400 

52 

450 

103 

850 

108 

191 

110 

712 

150 

903 

163 

150 

50 

300 

68 

450 

46 

206 

45 

217 

90 

423 

39 

300 

100 

550 

145 

850 

200 

800 

55 

325 

155 

1,125 

80 

637 

48 

305 

122 

942 

80 

1.020 

130 

780 

253 

1,800 

147 

300 

19 

103 

69 

403 

54 

110 

23 

115 

43 

225 

29 

500 

83 

550 

148 

1,050 

171 

4,715 

780 

4,857 

1,426 

9,572 

1,235 

515 

230 

1,400 

320 

1,915 

272 

670 

110 

812 

205 

1,482 

143 

415 


105 


TOTALS— BY  DISTRICTS 


North  of  Chicago  River, 


East  of  North  Branch.. 

59 

319 

94 

603 

153 

922 

142 

Desplaines  Street  to  River, 
Madison  to  Chicago  Ave. 

261 

1,544 

309 

1,643 

570 

3,187 

391 

Desplaines  Street  to  River, 
Madison  to   12th  Street. 

151 

1,124 

275 

1,618 

426 

2,742 

505 

Desplaines  Street  to  River, 
12th  Street  to  18th  St.. 

35 

385 

170 

1,122 

205 

1,527 

461 

East  of  Chicago  River, 
Harrison  to  18th  Street. 

646 

4,715 

780 

4,857 

1,426 

9,572 

1,235 

Lake  Front  

185 

1,185 
9,272 

340 

2,212 
12,075 

525 

3,397 

415 

GRAND  TOTALS...] 

1,337 

1,968 

3,305 

21,347 

3,149 

NOTE:     Figures  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 


Table  No.  11 

CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

TOTAL  TEAM  TRACK  FREIGHT  DAILY 

INBOUND  OUTBOUND 

RAILROAD                                     Cars     Tons  Cars     Tons 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry 12          152  5  57 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 52       1,065  8  130 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R 70       2,296  8  153 

Belt  Railway   68       1,460  10  171 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 9            14  9  19 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 23          491  8  118 

C.  &  W.  L  R.  R 42       1,138  13  239 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 42          720  17  225 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 6          120  5  150 

C.  I.  &  L.  Ry 15          300  3  60 

C.  J.  Ry 32          675  14  225 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 203       4.015  55  1,015 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 280       8,263  51  996 

C.  R.   I.  &  P.  Ry 81        2,945  20  421 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 10          140  5  65 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 16         272  16  190 

L   C.  R.  R 84       1,618  27  685 

L  N.  Ry 5          150  1 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 64       1,353  33  1,095 

M.  C.  R.  R 31          500  16  230 

M.  St.  P.  &.  S.  S.  M.  Ry 12         200  1  14 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R 5           65  11  90 

P.   M.  R.  R 12          200  2  27 

P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 69       1,715  15  270 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 69       1,769  16  328 

Wabash  R.  R 25          830  10  120 

TOTALS   1,337     32,466  388  7,094 

NOTE:     Figures  are  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 

106 


Cars 

Tons 

17 

209 

60 

1,195 

78 

2,449 

78 

1,631 

18 

33 

31 

609 

55 

1,377 

59 

945 

11 

270 

18 

360 

46 

900 

258 

5,030 

331 

9,259 

101 

3,366 

15 

205 

32 

462 

121 

2,303 

5 

151 

97 

2,448 

47 

730 

13 

214 

16 

155 

14 

227 

84 

1,985 

85 

2,097 

35 

950 

1,725 

47,660 

Table  No.  12 

CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

TEAM  TRACK  FREIGHT  DAILY 

In  Territory  East  of  Desplaines  Street  from   18th  Street  to  Chicago  Avenue 

Car  Cap'v 

INBOUND        OUTBOUND           TOTAL  of  Team 

RAILROAD                     Cars      Tons           Cars     Tons          Cars      Tons  Tracks 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Rv 12    152      5    57      17  209  141 

B.  &.  O.  R.  R 20    200      3    75      23  275  162 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R 6    146      2         42      8  188  133 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 9     14      9    19      18  33  116 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 14    225      6    81      20  306  146 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 41    708      16   204     57  912  386 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 6    120      5    150      11  270  138 

C.  I.  &  L.  Ry....- 15    300      3    60      18  360  68 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 84   1,615      30   620     114  2,235  292 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 122   3,518      37   721     159  4.239  691 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 23    605      12   258      35  863  171 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 10    140      5    65      15  205  69 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 11    198      14   169      25  367  73 

1.  C.  R.  R 40    800     22   480     62  1,280  470 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 35    700     25   900     60  1,600  206 

M.  C.  R.  R 31    500      16   230     47  730  157 

M.  St.  P.&S.  S.  M.  Ry.   12    200      1    14      13  214  99 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.   5     65      11    90      16  155  94 

P.  M.  R.  R 12    200      2    27      14  227  126 

P.C.C.&St.  L.  Ry 33    695      6    97     39  792  172 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 39    956      12    195      51  1,151  230 

Wabash  R.  R 25    825      10   120     35  945  100 

TOTALS 605  12,882     252  4,674     857  17,556  4,240 

NOTE:  Figures  are  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 


Table  No.  13 

CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

DAILY  TEAM  TRACK  BUSINESS 
In  Territory  East  of  Desplaines  Street  from   18th  Street  to  Chicago 


INBOUND 

DISTRICT                           Cars  Tons 

North  of  Chicago  River, 

East  of   North   Branch 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Rv 35  680 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 7  95 

TOTALS 42  775 

Desplaines  St.  to  River, 

Madison  to  Chicago  Ave. 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 45  850 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 87  2,683 

P.C.C.&St.  L.  Ry 33  695 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 9  124 

TOTALS 174  4,352 


OUTBOUND 
Cars     Tons 


20 

12 


32 


400 
135 


32    53: 


703 


TOTAL 
Cars      Tons 


55 
19 


1,080 
230 


Avenue 

Car  Cap'y 
of  Team 
Tracks 


102 
41 


74       1,310 


206       5,055 


143 


8 

160 

53 

1,010 

160 

18 

446 

105 

3,129 

473 

6 

97 

39 

792 

172 

0 

0 

9 

124 

31 

836 


107 


Desplaines  St.  to  River, 

Madison  to  12th  Street 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 9  14  9  19 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 13  203  14  179 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 15  330  6  68 

TOTALS 37  547  29  266 

Desplaines  St.  to  River, 
12th  to  18th  Street 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 20  200  3  75 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R....  6  146  2  42 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 28  505  2  25 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 6  120  5  150 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 4  85  2  60 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 28  740  7  140 

P.  M.  R.  R 12  200  2  21 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Rv IS  502  6  127 

M.  St.  P.  &S.  S.  M.  Ry.  12  200  1  14 

TOTALS 131  2,698  30  660 

East  of  Chicago  River, 

Harrison  to  18th  St. 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry 12  152  5  57 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 14  225  6  81 

C.  L  &  L.  Ry 15  300  3  60 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 2Z  605  12  258 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 10  140  5  65 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 11  198  14  169 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Rv 35  700  25  900 

N.Y.  C.&St.  L.  R.  R...  5  65  11  90 

Wabash  R.  R 25  825  10  120 

TOTALS 150  3,210  91  1,800 

Lake  Front 

L  C.  R.  R 40  800  22  480 

M.  C.  R.  R 31  500  16  230 

TOTALS 71  1.300  38  710 

TOTALS— BY  DISTRICTS 
Xorth  of  Chicago  River, 

East  of  North  Branch  42  775  32  535 

Desplaines  St.  to  River, 

Madison  to  Chicago  Ave.  174  4,352  32  703 

Desplaines  St.  to  River, 

Madison  to  12th  St...  Zl  547  29  266 

Desplaines  St.  to  River, 

12th  to  18th  Street...  131  2.698  30  660 

East    of  Chicago  River, 

Harrison  to  18th   St..  150  3,210  91  1.800 

Lake  Front  71  1,300  38  710 

GRAND  TOTALS.  605  12.882  252  4,674 

NOTE:     Figures  based  on  business  of  March,  1913 


18 

33 

116 

27 

382 

131 

21 

398 

11 

66 


813 


109       2,010 


324 


23 

275 

162 

8 

188 

133 

30 

530 

255 

11 

270 

138 

6 

145 

30 

35 

880 

177 

14 

227 

126 

21 

629 

122 

13 

214 

230 

161       3,358         1,373 


17 

209 

141 

20 

306 

146 

18 

360 

68 

35 

863 

171 

15 

205 

69 

25 

367 

73 

60 

1.600 

206 

16 

155 

94 

35 

945 

100 

241 

5,010 

1,068 

62 

1,280 

470 

47 

730 

157 

627 


74 

1.310 

143 

206 

5,055 

836 

66 

813 

324 

161 

3.358 

1,373 

241 

5,010 

1,068 

109 

2,010 

627 

857 

17,556 

4,371 

108 


CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS  Table  No.  14 

Outbound  House  Freight 
Transfer  Freight  Received  Daily 
BY  CAR  BY  TEAM    BY  TUNNEL        TOTAL 

RAILROAD                         Tons                      Tom  Tons  Tons 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry 673                          0  0  673 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 150                        50  20  220 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 93                        60  12  165 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 250                        80  20  350 

C.  B.  &Q.  R.  R 130                      210  21  361 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 12                      200  9  221 

C.  I.  &  L.  Ry 36                           4  5  45 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 665                      145  70  880 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 1,296                        92  15  1,403 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 50                        75  40  165 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 32                      100  26  158 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 133                        69  21  223 

I.  C.  R.  R 400                      150  100  650 

I.  N.  Ry 90                           0  0  90 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry 290                        48  130  468 

M.  C.  R.  R 300                        66  20  386 

M.  St.  P.  &.  S.  S.  M.  Ry...       60-20  15  95 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R 0                        15  5  20 

P.  M.  R.  R 18                          6  0  24 

P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 85                        77  14  176 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 312                        79  39  430 

Wabash  R.  R 150                         0  10  160 

TOTALS 5,225                    1,546  592  7,363 

NOTE:     Figures  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 

CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS  Table  No.  15 

Inbound  House  Freight 
Transfer  Freight  Forwarded  Daily 

BY  CAR  BY  TEAM     BY  TUNNEL        TOTAL 

RAILROAD                         Tons                      Tons  Tons  Tons 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry 0          40  5  45 

B.  &  O.  R.  R 40          30  25  95 

B.  &  O.  C.  T.  R.  R 250          0  0  250 

C.  &  A.  R.  R 4          33  12  49 

C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R 32          59  13  104 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R 96         104  67  267 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R 10          60  40  110 

C.  I.  &  L.  Ry 0         65  22  87 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry 0         245  54  299 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry 477         113  78  668 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry 30         130  35  195 

C.  W.  P.  &  S.  R.  R 10          0  0  10 

C.  &  E.  R.  R 15          10  8  33 

G.  T.  W.  Ry 0         108  31  139 

I.  C.  R.  R 108         170  75  353 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry *          60  0  *  60 

M.  C.  R.  R 545         64  0  609 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry...    0          39  16  55 

N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R....    0         55  10  65 

P.  M.  R.  R 0          5  0  5 

P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry 53         208  34  295 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry 0          30  0  30 

Wabash  R.  R 100         269  42  411 

TOTALS  1,770                    1,897  567  4,234 

*  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  car  transfer  included  in  M.  C.  R.  R.  figures. 
NOTE:     All  figures  based  on  business  of  March,   1913. 

109 


Table  No.  16. 

CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS 

IN  TERRITORY  EAST  OF  DESPLAINES  STREET,  FROM  EIGHTEENTH 

STREET  TO  CHICAGO  AVENUE 


Railroad  .§ 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.— 

12th  and  State  Sts Out 

14th  and  State  Sts In 

B.  &  O.  R.  R.— 

Franklin  and  Polk  Sts In 

Fifth  Ave.  and  Polk  St Out 

Illinois  and  Kingsbury  Sts....  In — Out 

Fifth  Ave.  and  Taylor  St....  Out 

C.  &  A.  R.  R.— 

Cable  St.  and  River In 

Cable  and  Canal  Sts Out 

C.  &  E.  I.  R  .R.— 

12th  and  Clark  Sts In 

12th  and  Clark  Sts Out 

C.  &  E.  R.  R.— 

14th  and  Clark  Sts In— Out 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.— 

Harrison  and  Canal  Sts In 

16th  St.  and  Stewart  Ave In— Out 

Canal  and  Harrison  Sts Out 

16th  and  Jefferson  Sts Out 

C.  G.  W.  R.  R.— 

303  W.  Harrison  St In— Out 

C.  I.  &  L.  Ry.— 

Federal  and  Taylor  Sts In — Out 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.— 

Kinzie  and  Kingsbury  Sts....  In 

Wayman  and  Halsted  Sts....  In 

Kingsbury  and  Illinois  Sts...  Out 

Wayman  and  Desplaines  Sts..  Out 

Fulton  and  West  Water  Sts..  Out 

15th  and  Jefferson  Sts Out 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry.— 

State  St.  and  River In 

Grand  Ave.  and  Jefferson  St..  In 

Rush  St.,  near  Kinzie  St Out 

526  W.  Kinzie  St Out 

16th  and  Jefferson  Sts ...  Out 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.— 

Sherman  and  Taylor  Sts In 

Fifth  Ave.  and  Taylor  St....  In 

Sherman  and  Taylor  Sts..."..  Out 

110 


mbined  House 
Platform  Area 
uare  Feet 

r  Capacity  of 
mse  Tracks 

ea  per  Car  of 
ack  Capacity, 
uare  Feet 

rs  of  Freight 
ily 

ea  per  Car  of 
eight,  Sq.  Ft. 

25,069 

100 

250 

65 

385 

14,457 

18 

803 

15 

964 

34,920 

2,2 

1,090 

45 

775 

8,160 

5 

1,632 

6 

1,360 

22,750 

8 

2,844 

3 

7,583 

23,400 

71 

329 

52 

450 

13,950 

33 

422 

24 

582 

19,770 

108 

183 

67 

295 

/ 

64,040 

51 

1,255 

40 

1,600 

33,383 

112 

297 

110 

303 

78,922 


80 


986 


155 


509 


54,356 
50,617 
78,800 
37,513 

34 

32 

173 

34 

1,600 

1,580 

455 

1.105 

64 

11 

162 

5 

850 
4,600 

486 
7,500 

25,199 

46 

547 

68 

370 

24,690 

52 

474 

90 

271 

89,398 
48,080 
58,164 
41,456 
31,284 
12,000 

30 
41 
18 
128 
13 
7 

2,980 
1,170 
3,225 
324 
2,410 
1,714 

10 
110 

7 

170 

4 

10 

8,940 
436 

8,309 
244 

7,821 

1,200 

32,138 
42,084 
48,480 
46,402 
29,640 

27 

17 

59 

105 

156 

1,190 

2,475 
822 
442 
190 

46 
82 
83 
100 
70 

697 
512 
584 
464 
423 

23,424 
39,355 
58,646 

36 

48 

116 

651 
820 
505 

30 

15 

100 

781 

2,620 

586 

CHICAGO  FREIGHT  TERMINALS— (Continued) 


<0    ^>  H~. 


>+-, 


Kailroad  s  st-ss  vg  jatss  v^'  ^S 

G.  T.  W.  Ry.— 

12th  St.  and  Plymouth  Ct....  In  37,941  14  2,710  74  513 

Taylor  St.  and  Plymouth  Ct..  Out  41,250  66  625  48  858 

I.  C.  R.  R.— 

South  Water  St In  63,288  24  2,640  90  703 

South  Water  St Out  55,378  248  223  230  242 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.— 

La  Salle  and  tavlor  Sts In  29,650  56  529  100  296 

Taylor  and  Clark  Sts In  10,000  6  1,666  5  2,000 

Clark  and  Polk  Sts In  11,410  4  2,852  8  1426 

Clark  St.,  foot  of  Taylor  St..  In  10.500  8  1,312  10  1,050 

La  Salle  and  Taylor  Sts Out  51,200  7Z  701  130  394 

M.  C.  R.  R.— 

120  E.  South  Water  St In  50,000  17  2,940  20  2,500 

120  E.  South  Water  St In  31,500  28  1,125  75  420 

120  E.  South  Water  St Out  23,200  98  237  110  210 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  Ry.— 

12th   and  Canal   Sts In— Out  165,000  179  921  82  2,012 

\   Y  C  &•  St   I    R   R 

Taylor,  12th  and  Clark  Sts...  In— Out  35,485  54  657  69  512 

P.  M.  R.  R.— 

Harrison  and  Franklin  Sts....  In— Out  9,150  29  315  43  213 

P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.— 

Halsted  and  Carroll  Sts In  35,520  26  1,366  46  772 

Kinzie  and  Morgan  Sts In  34,800  14  2,485  22,  1,512 

Clinton  and  Carroll  Sts Out  18,000  47  383  35  514 

P.  F.  W.  &  C.  Ry.— 

Madsion  St.  and  River In  62,035  82  756  54  1.148 

Polk  St.  and  River In  17,630  18  980  9  1,960 

Van  Buren  St.  and  River Out  13,925  40  348  22  633 

18th  St.  and  Stewart  Ave....  Out  25,900  53  488  27  960 

Van  Buren  St.  and  River Out  24,105  17  1,418  24  1,005 

Wabash  R.  R.— 

12th  St.  and  Plymouth  Ct. . . .  In  62,143  81  766  65  954 

Clark  and  Taylor  Sts Out  25,404  90  282  83  306 

Note :   Figures  based  on  business  of  March,  1913. 


Ill 


o 

2 


H 

H 

O 


en 
W 

H 

I — I 

I — I 

u 

< 

M 
u 

< 


o 
o 

< 

I — I 

K 
o 


Q 

< 

CO 

O 


c 


(U 

bo  -O 


^ 


•z   o 


<U     U      4-. 

O    aj 
^    . .   *-" 


hi 

O 


Co 


m 


-4-» 

CO 


^0  0  ^^J  D5.<F  "^^ Q, ^. CO -H  fo, vo^^ 0,1010^ CX).00_ 
■^  *^     crScoi^liM'— ico.-HCOCVlCN'-iCJ'— I 


r>»vOcoooc\coot^fo>-ot^co 

On  CN        t^  t^  t^  o  CO  ^  ^H  oOio  00 

f-H  »— tt-H  *— (»— (1 — ICO  r— t 


"i  jb  C  'XIIDDJd  O  u-)00(MO'0--Hrv.iorO'*co^r^ 

lZfl3D4DJ  roOt^ONON'^O^fOfOCOio^ 

I.       \0  CV)  ro  ro  O  Q\  O  "TO  li-j  O  O  r^ 

oooocooCJ\or^f^'Oco^'0"^ 


■}iiF!i-ii   T    (n  CV)  t^  t^  O  O  u^  C^J  O  ^  10  CV)  00 10 
^«  'I  ^5  J  D5  (  T^  "1^^^  ^  ^  ^.5n  O  CO  ^  r^,<M_o_ 

"^      v       -'[7  cqoorMioioir)uooocooo''^Jooco 

»— c        vo  "—I 

/.     C/r-^rocoO"^'-'00"^"^0*0'^i-0 
flfSpUJ  j.0  SUDJ  '-'^        CM-^^.-Hf'^OJvO'-i'-ifO 

AD  J   U,34  V3Ay  "l""!,^^!^  '~l^l,^,'-'^.'^.C?s_<^  Os  p, 
l^ltDV^V n  r-HC\lt^vOO\COcO'-ifOvO"^vOO 


^pvAj^  SAVJ  ^  ^      S 


T-H         CM 


Q  Q  ro  o  Q  O  o  O  O  O  Q  O  O 

j^^ J-  3uvnb<^  oCt-jooolooooooo 

♦       a  O    On  O  fO  O  O  O  CM  O  Omo -^  Cvj  o 

'pdl4n33Q   V3J,y  fO>rrCoDr-r^"voQ"MDO<o"^'oO'' 

^  OncOO  OOt^O  So  ONOn  ^■^  o 

CM"— 1»— I.— I  r— (,_iCM  -^  "—I,—! 


>~-l 

to 

Co 
;^ 
o 


XDJ  A,34  V3.iy  '-  °° 


CM  "—I      ■»-! 


•ONroO'Oioi-Ou-)ror<l»— I 
■lororOr-iinovO'^r^lON 
■  ON_t^  *^.°0  '^.'^.^CM_'-<_io 

H  CM  *— ^  »— Tt— Ti-H   .—I 


ftl6}3XJ  j.0  SUDJ        '- 


•  O  >-0  00  I 
.irj  >-0  >0  I 


>  xo  CM  ro  On  CO  00 

\ -rl-  CM  m  \0  •^  ■* 

^,-HCM  '— 


,(D_3   ^5iif  05^ f/  <^.^^ 

(^IPd4vj  cm® 


•  cMOr^cor^O'^c^cot^ 

•  OC^1VOT-IOOOOO^O^^ 
.  TO  ■^Ov^'^r^  MD  0,"\"0^co 

'  •— r»— 1 1— '  *-^  1— Tcm'^cm  1-h  mH  »-h 


CO  I 


i[3DAJ^     S-IDJ    r-H  ^        . ,-( 


)N£5CMOOt^'^C7N'-i 

)'<*u-50co"*iocMr^ 

Cv)        .-1  '-' 


^33 J  3UDnbs  (^gg 
'p3i4n33Q  V3xy  pq"^' 


,— (  1-H      '  CM  »—' 


coOONOmNO^^OOt^ 
t^TJ-ONON^HVoO  —  ij^On 

cc  No^-^-*  10  o.r^_oo  CM  "^_ 

ro"  co"  O"  CO  >— T  CO'  '^"lo'  CO'  u^ 
ONt>>-^OC3NCO'*co 


:on 


CO<M  CM 


CM 


'■Qi 


a 
5 


:  :  :  >>hJ 

•  ^i*^      •      •  rr, 

Ct:  Cd  H  Cd  Cei      iQi^-    >>CO 


(^  :^f^  ip^ 


P^ 


■o3 


CJPH-C 


'=^  d  b  w  w  "^  =3 1-^ 
H  oa  oa  oa  oa  d- 

<pQmUuudUdJ;z;^^ 


f^Hc/i^^-S 


CM 

IT) 

CM 

00 

r^ 

T-H 

Cii 

CM 

pi 

u-j 

^ 

H-l 

CO 

c/2 

cm" 

e3 

NO 

U 

NO 

CO 
Cvf 

;^ 

'Tf 

• 

CO 

'^ 

•Tt- 

<D 

J3 

-M 

cq 

^ 

to 

K 

^ 

>, 

f-H 

On 

c 

CM 

0 

•T— » 

NO 

T) 

On 

lU 

CO 

U) 

T-H 

D 

Ul 

p:; 

CO 

CO 

NO 

CO- 

^ 

ON 

t-H 

ca 

CM 

CO 

NT) 

J 

0 

ir> 

0 

t3 

C 

NO 

S 

Cv| 

rt 

1-! 

is 

0 

JS 

C^ 

t/> 

Of) 

NO 

rt 

OJ 

T"" 

Ih 

< 

fVl 

t^ 

■^ 

CM 

0 

C3 

T-H 

t> 

H 

CO 

8 

T— > 

CM 


CO 

< 

O 


c 

O 


O 

a 

< 


o 


112 


113 


ov<r 

2 

if 

C 
% 

-a 
«> 

o 
•o 

il 
1 

■5 

<          ^   & 
z:    y    u    o 

°^  ^  ^  -I 
UJ  a  u  " 
h-    <:    «c  ^ 

f-  d£  ^ 

1^    ^   u       °^ 
o    <   d  ^ 

O    G-    <    3. 

«c   E  P  2 

y  o  J  ^ 
r  u  <  e- 

^ 

02C 

^ 

002 

J 

02Tr 

§ 

^ 

09Z- 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 
^ 

OVT 

^ 

^ 

1"" 

02Z 

s 

1 

^ 

002 

o: 

1 

^ 

^ 

5oyi 
o 

§ 

s 

1 

s 

_          J. 

1 

i 

~      T" 

Ofl 

i 

s 

1'" 

s 

1 

021 

J. 

^ 

^  1 

001 

5 

? 

~      T" 

i    1 

1 

i 

s 

_     j:: 

^    ^ 

1 

Fl 

-i- 

09 

1    1 

^ 
$ 

1 

1 

1 

_     J.. 

i      ! 

s 
^ 

i 

1 

09 

s 

^ 

^ 

^ 

1 

S      i 

$ 
§ 

1 

1 

s 

5 

^ 

1  ^ 

^      i 

^ 

^ 

1 

1 

ot- 

S    i 

5 

5 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^  1 

^  ^  ^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

i 

^  1 

^ 

5 

- 

-I 

^ 

^ 

^  1 

1  1  1 

$ 

1 

i 

1  i 

02 

1 

1 

1    1 

^  !  i 

1 

^   0 

m 

R  i 

^  ^ 
^  ^ 

5 

s 

1 

i 

s 

^ 

1  i 

M  U 

^ 

?  i 

I 
5 

^  ; 

0 

a: 
1*-' 
iri 
od 
H 
< 

0 

d  c 

"    r 
:   u 

o 

IE 
< 
o8 
O 

LJ 

6 

a: 
u 

>-■ 

u 

q: 

of 
a:  0 

od  } 
CD  c 

7  -i  o  s:  0 
j  u  u  cJ  C. 

C 

6  ^  cd  ^ 

^.  ^  od  a: 

^    V-    (j   T. 

':>  o  >->  '^ 

a: 
t 

J 

a:  a: 
J  Jo 

of 
of 
J 

d 
>-= 

z: 

IT 
J 

^.  «d 
^.  u 
X  u 

a:  a: 

>■  . 

(T  a: 
d  cd 

od  r 
it     < 

114 


115 


116 


ii; 


' 

Q2L 

UJ 

.2 

to 

069 

,    ^  S       lis     7-1! 

z:   <£ 

lot 

099 

r   ^ 

S    1    ^       1 

<    ■    ^    V. 

Ot9 

1.1      n 

^            V     "S- 

^-      u 

—   0  >;    y      2 

oogr 

H    ^ 

r  ^ 

«  1 5  *"   i 

r  c  I      0.  0 

OLS- 

CT  '^ 

_     1 
iij    H 

otc 

C  "^ 

iZ  3 

OIS 

^  *;; 

O    (0 

08V 

?-^ 

O    b. 

OSt^ 

—    o 

r    1- 

in  ozr 

<   no- 

u  ^ 

f-o  ^ 

UJ 

t)  06C 

ii. 

.09C 
o 

r 

0£C 

00£ 

OiZ 

OW 

012~ 

081 

OCl 

I 

1 

■ 

OZl 

1 

1 

1 

3- 

1 

1 

1 

§ 

1 

■ 

06 

1 

1 

1 

^ 

1 

1 

t 

1 

1 

■ 

1 

■ 

^ 

■     . 

1 

1 

t 

09 

oc- 
0- 

ISI 

IS 

IS 

S 

:iis 

■1 
■1 

1     ■ 

1  SI  II 

iSilS 

■ 
■ 

Ii 

11^ 

fri 

It 

k 

fc 

ki 

Ik 

kl 

^'1' 

ftf- 

k 

ki^ 

M'S 

or 

-.  H 
-  u 
J  d 

3  fld 

a: 
a: 
< 

u 

cd 
uJ 

od 

6 

(J  cJ 

a:     . 
cj  a: 

u  6 

c 

od     " 
U    C 

t    DC 

•  a: 

^     oil 

t  a: 

:5  a: 

a  ^ 

or        2: 

CO             '^ 

s:-  ^  3 
od  ttT  Qj 
CO  u  ./^ 

J  s  z 

cd 

_i 

>^ 

zf 

J 
of  "^ 

2:  0 

q:  q: 

ad      X 

118 


009T 

1 

f 

1 

5? 

^    ?    i 

-1  5      §  ■  H  ^  «o 

<  ?      5  I  5  ^  «vi 
r  y  ^  7 lo  1  - 

OOt^ 

-C 

>- 

002V 

z: 

^ 

OOOV 

^o^5v  t^  ^ 

0 

Qu    ,    <    0  *    „  "t 

Ss| go  ^°^ 
^.  5  M  - 1  <  2 

y  ^  u  i^  u  r  u 

r  r       f=  (c  0  n:  S 
( )  .        y  ui  uj  u  ^ 

^   ^          Z  0-    ?   "^    0 

■0          Z         5:        0 
<          0         0 

kJ         0        U 

OOQC 

(?) 

^ 

009r 

C 

-<3 

OOVC" 

1 

0025- 

(rt 

03 

ooor 

■:3 

iZ 

oosr 

1 

-s 

0092" 

2: 

00»^ 

ei  oozr 

ooor 

■n 

^ 

owrr 

1 

1 

oo9r 

1 

1 

1 

OOfrT 

s 

^ 

§ 

^ 

i 

wzr 

§ 

^ 

1 

~M 

^ 

^ 

ooor 

009" 
009" 

oof- 
ooz- 

t 

^ 

i 

i 

11 

i 

§ 

■ 

§ 

|t 

^ 

1  1 

1 

1 

]j  1 

1 

!b 

1  J 

fi 

1: 

— 

i-    ■ 

-   I- 

1^ 

■^ 

■1 

■ 

f 

pii 
ll  I  1  lu  1 

lull  im 

li 

in  pill 

p  1 

PMI 

IMM 

^K 

^1 

i«i 

imi 

i^ 

m 

J^.Mi 

m^ 

of 

X 
m 

IC 

0 

>- 

oc 
u:    c 

<   c 

^-1 

c   a:   , 
d  <J  < 

5  or  5: 
J  iJ   z: 

J  <J  6 

^.  oc 
a:,  q: 

(d  0 
0  d 

.  c 

J  (/ 

d  t 

r    QC    h 

> 
0 

a 

-  tc  s 

-     (J    CA 

y  -i  _ 

ce 

ai 

_i 
*^ 
in 

zf 

of 
a: 

>■ 

J 

d 
(J 

it 

a: 

119 


Uii  1  p.  |i  p  |ii  iii  Jii  i  p  pflii  p  i  iirfiip  1 
III  III  III  III  III  III  III  III  III  I  III  In  III  III  III  I  III  III  III  In 


>- 

CE 
U-- 

<■ 


d 

QQ 


tc: 

< 
6 


I— < 
tJ 

(J 


of 
u 

U 


z: 
u 


a: 
a: 
dr 

CD 

(J 


a: 


J 

»— < 
U 


>- 
DC 


o 


cc 
a: 

f- i 
of 
cJ 


a: 
a: 
u 


U 
t 


a: 


od 
J 


cc 
ad 

± 


(J 

a: 


i2 
<d 
it 

a: 


a: 
a: 

< 
5 


120 


1 

02C 

^  0 

UJ  jL   2oP 
,0:  (n   £  a;  H 

W    ?  (J  *' 

0  J;  t  *  i3 
a  "  r  5  B 

5k    ii 

07          1 

1 

-« 

3  2^ 
0  *>    ., 

1-5 

- 

OOS 
09Z 
092 

'T  5    -rr 

- 

8^"^ 

1 — 1 — 

n                     J 

UJ.5 

♦1   <n 

ovz 

022 

I 

, 

i     1 

— 

J 

- 

i^  ::zi 

• — \ — 

ooz 

6 

1 

! 

V- 

— 

^- 

- 

i          ■ 

i 

1 

j     ^  1 

! 

_  ^ 

d 

i  i — 

1 

F  r^ 

on 

■ 

; 

021 

'1 
1 

1  +" 

' 

OOT 
0« 
09 

or 

0 

» 

c  . 

U  X 

o'lD 

u 

U  0 

' 

'    i 

HjH^ 

!i 

IS  J 

1 
1 

U£J 

; 

K 

- 

1 

r 

i 

ob  u 

r 

s 

6 

or     a: 

1 

1  >■ 
-or 

^'  t 
>;<« 

d  a; 

1 

c  (_•  0^ 

I 
uo: 

HOC 

> 
j  0  C 

o§  oi 

•  ..^  l^-  ^  >=  ^ 

:  id  6  ou  (J 

6d  J  z 

1 

la 
a:5 

I        tt: 

r  0 
0  < 

OrOp°o                      So                                                           li. 

2^             S#             2i                 I*                                              5 

?c          ^!^          ^ci             iSe                                    ^         . 

121 


09r 

ij 

:  <2 

H    »:     •" 

09V" 

— 

-  .0 

1  3  2 

3!  i^ 

!      0      -C 

ovr 

-5^2 

i     <0      0 

-  £5  5 

i  -:*  I 

02V' 

-  ^  0  .'i 

u  y    (J 

■3  ^ 

OOV" 

— 

>    <o  ;^ 

-rP° 

t               w 

09£" 

_  aS  ^ 

<5  o>  i 

Ui    I     c 

51  §  i 

09S: 



•■^^   ^< 

jo  r  -^ 

-       0   ^ 

?r  ^    ° 

OWT 

Sp     ^< 

ji?o  -3 

-?5    E 

^S        S 

OEC 

0  <^    Q 

:^'  ^  -2 

I        :  r^  U 

S^a  5!    ■" 

OOC^ 

0  0 

k  0  01   J, 

'       Si 

091 

i5 

n 

<f092 

vJ 

oorz 

6 

EOZr 

001 

09r 

091 

ovr 

- 

-    -^- 

ozr 

P 

-l- 

oor 

08" 

' 

-   - 

09 
02^ 

ij 

'    ' 

I 

-1- 

j      jii 

1 

j 

0 

iff  I 

r 

8  r 
j  d 

> 

K 

C    H   OS 

>  >"  0 
J  q;  a; 

5     .' 
5^080 

d  jS    do 

ttf        K   V 

ft;   (E  0:    «C 

cr  <»:!  tfi  ^  c 
fld  ?  (d  z:  c 

id  e^s  A  3 

0  0  u  u  £ 

.  0  >  .  li.  c  b:  dj 

'^  oS  5J^  tfj  f^  J  ^  I 

e:  ^  5^  h;  08  M  a:  • 

•^  H-  (0  >.  S          0 

j  (i  Jz  5    £  ^- 

0 

■  t 
a:  CL- 

Ou. 

to 
Oar 

or                  °g               <?«                                    So                                          "^ 

Hk                               t-*^                         H^                                                            »->-                                                                        "J 

<nc                       <ns                    ini)                                              Sin                                                       :£ 

1^       1^      r^              6^                 5 

122 


123 


s^g 

OO 

Oi 

TT 

00 

to 

o 

o 

^ 

O 

IO 

^ 

^ 

CO 

tsj 

N 

O 

CO 

N 

CO 

eg 

lO 

T 

in 

to 

to 

1  s£ 

F  «_  ._ 

o 

■* 

o 

' 

__ 

<o 

_ 

o 

o 

to 

<o 

I- 

■<r 

m 

1 

o 

to 

eg 

m 

o 

CM 

C3 

s 

">f 

.o 

r- 

o 

en 

[J 

P  '^ 

o 

»- 

lO 

t~ 

eg 

o 

<M 

CO 

to 

<o 

< 

u 

^ 

;^  •> 

f- 

o 

o  o 

<o 

to 

t- 

O 

o 

1  ^ 

r- 

o 

o  o 

r~ 

OI 

CJ 

o 

o 

1" 

(O 

o  o 

CO 

f- 

-  ■* 

o 

3: 

ll 

CO 

-•a 

IO 

CS) 

^ 

" 

lO 

2 

g 

(0  — 

o 

o 

O 

iO 

o 

l~ 

o 

^ 

to 

(O 

8 

o 

(flcvl 

o 

o 

o 

■^ 

IO 

n  lo 

« 

CO 

<M 

o 

^ 

at 

o 

o 

o 

■^ 

eo 

o 

t~ 

CO 

r- 

o 

o 

-^•^ 

o 

CO 

IO 

Oi 

■O 

-3  ^r 

CO 

vr 

o 

lO 

CO 

c^ 

CSJ 

(M 

m 

■<r 

<o 

C  (O 

to 

>o 

to 

eg 

CO 

u 

(£ 

rt 

w  — 

J 

^  <o 

OO 

O 

o 

o 

i-  o 

<g 

O) 

o 

CO 

i- 

< 

Ci-i: 

o 

o 

iTt 

a> 

a  (D 

lO 

iO 

o 

eg 

l^ 

1 

^ 

1  ''^ 

n 

(n 

n 

eg 

N 

to 

^ 

^ 

<o 

lO 

11 

en 

1^ 

O 

a» 

1- 

t~ 

»- 

■<T 

«o 

^ 

ID 

•^ 

eo 

O) 

>o 

lO 

i  ^ 

— 

— 

eg 

eg 

M 

to 

V 

z 

f2i 

o 

tM 

CO 

o 

o 

_ 

o 

to 

Csl 

eg 

o 

OO 

eg 

9) 

cu 

o> 

o 

o 

h- 

CM 

r- 

(O 

to 

2 

'^ 

o» 

CO 

I 

in 

CsJ 

N 

<o 

CO 

f^ 

F 

o    irt 

lO  <o 

«Otf> 

to 

*o 

T 

'^  o 

O 

to 

Cvl  ■«• 

%t<^ 

<D 

<     X 

o    o 

>> 

n 

£5 

51 

si 

II 

ll 

M3 

6^ 

>. 

^   w 

Si 

s> 

1 

W 

k^ 

i 

o 

2    (0 

o  to 

1 

?3 

5, 

TO 

1 

to 

Cj  CQ 

n 
03 

& 

CQ 

^ 

<§ 

i3 

^ 

„ 

ir 

O 

lO 

_, 

to 

«n 

CM 

^i 

h 

CM 

w 

eo 

Z  5 

1— 

^ 

N 

„ 

^1 

-J 

1 

'" 

S 

2 

t- 

ooo 
ooo 

o 

o 

%^^ 

U< 

lO— Tr 

TT  V 

to 

-^  „  n 

<   03 

u 
to  o 

X 

z 

! 

hI 

ss< 

pg 

a.  3  3 

o 
2 

o 

• 

IO 

eg 

(O 

r- 

to 

eg 

< 

" 

"^ 

CO 

mtOO 

.  o 

oot- 

loor- 

ooo 

OO 

oio<\i 

OODO 

3 

(~ 

ocvjm 

CO 

inoos 

cy  oooi 

lOoOOJ 

OO 

■q-^(0 

O— (T> 

H 

u. 

UIO  — 

to 

-r-O 

CT-^O 

">f  0>CM 

ffiO 

ff.«3r- 

OilOCD 

<  5 

/I 

< 

i5i 

z 
_1 

11^ 

i: 

11 « 

11^ 

11^ 

11^ 

11^ 

m 

o 

Z 

o 

■>r 

(-5 

<o 

- 

O  T 

o 
eg 

to 

■^ 

(O 

eg 

OO 
eg 

eg 

a  s 

fit 

o 
o 

c^ 

§ 

O 

o 

o 

o 

g 

o 

>o 

o 
o 

O 

? 

j< 

o 

iO 

o 

00 

n 

N 

o 

a* 

00 

o» 

oj    a 

(D 

lO 

o 

(O 

O 

•V 

00 

esl 

o> 

lO 

(O 

r- 

<  " 

o 

r> 

OO 

o 

tsj 

m 

(O 

r- 

IO 

V 

•^ 

<  J 

"q- 

v 

•<r 

(SI 

lO 

o 

" 

<o 

eg 

>  o 

o 

o 

2   X 

o 

<o 

>, 

■* 

b  ? 

lO 

C: 

1^" 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

to 

<o 

5  6 

n 

2  3 

en 

r  2 

— 

tO 

— 

3     O 

==  x' 

u 

CO  a. 

n  -■ 

c  S 

o 
o 

o 

o 

CO 

2    o 

IO 

CM 

2  m 

^g 

1 

2   o 

2  <^ 

« 

B    ■"             <- 

T 

o 

5  -» 

to 

P3   CO 

1^ 

03 

CQ   to 

tn  2> 

D 

o 

So        to 

•» 

■<»■ 

CO 

^J^ 

^- 

E 

[LI 

^ 

tn 

to 

CO 

hi               o 

o 

4D 

TIO   O 

•^ 

__ 

as 

CO 

o 

«) 

o 

T 

tO 

c 

S    h          => 

o 

^ 

•o  o 

(SI 

a> 

<o 

«) 

CO 

(O 

'^ 

tp 

o 

< 

o 

to 

<o 

(M 

<o 

m 

CD 

r- 

OO 

X 

T 

■* 

o 

o> 

(O 

to 

eg 

1^ 

CO 

'* 

"^ 

t~ 

■* 

o 

T 

to 

■<• 

•o 

CVJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

O 

o 

O 

eg 

2£ 

o 

o 

o 

« 

O 

■^ 

o 

■^ 

eg 

O 

o 

o 

o 

T 

o> 

■^ 

^ 

O 

r- 

r~ 

Qt    o- 

<o 

(O 

■>* 

o 

O 

«o 

•o 

•o 

f 

t~ 

eg 

lO 

<   " 

<n 

V 

■X 

(O 

o 

« 

to 

CO 

o 

■^ 

o 

— 

(O 

eg 

o   „          " 

•c 

m 

o 

o 

t- 

•o 

r- 

■▼ 

.n 

O 

O 

to 

o 

n 

o> 

o 

tSJ 

a> 

CJ 

^ 

to 

-^ 

00 

o 

«» 

<T> 

iD 

lO 

eg 

V 

(g 

CO 

,!;aS  < 

la 

i 

~>  s 

1 

S 

s 

to 
<n 

0) 

1 

to 

(0 

to 

c 
c 

5> 
c 

c 

(2 

-1 

c 
g 
c 

3 

2    c 

£ 

3 

z 

^ 

3 

§ 

c 
D 

c 

1 

T3 

C 

s 

o 

1 

1 

>- 

Z 

< 

s 

ai 

>- 

J 
< 

a 

S 

§ 

1 

o 

O 

H 

I 
1 

J 

g 
3 

5 

5 

tn 

O 

f- 

H 

2 

^ 

E- 

X 

X 

X 

X 

u 

UJ 

O 

o 

T^J 

O 

.     ^ 

UO 

o 

O 

o 

<: 

Q. 

Z 

CQ 

ml 

I 


124 


GENERAL  RAILROAD  STATISTICS 


RAILROAD  STATISTICS. 

The  Eastern  District,  Southern  District  and  Western  District 
in  the  following  diagrams  are  the  districts  into  which  the  United 
States  has  been  divided  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  in 
its  statistical  reports. 

The  three  districts  may  be  defined  substantially  as  follows: 
The  Eastern  District  comprises  that  portion  of  the  United  States 
bounded  on  the  west  by  the  northern  and  the  western  shores  of  Lake 
Michigan  to  Chicago,  thence  by  a  line  to  Peoria,  thence  to  East  St. 
Louis,  thence  down  the  Mississippi  River  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio 
River,  and  on  the  south  by  the  Ohio  River  from  its  mouth  to  Parkers- 
burg,  W.  Va.,  thence  by  a  line  to  the  southwestern  corner  of  Mary- 
land, thence  by  the  Potomac  River  to  its  mouth. 

The  Southern  District  comprises  that  portion  of  the  United 
States  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Eastern  District  and  on  the  west 
by  the  Mississippi  River. 

•  The  remainder  of  the  United  States,  exclusive  of  Alaska  and  of 
island  possessions,  is  included  in  the  Western  District. 


125 


RAILROADS   IN   UNITED   STATES 

• 

/ 

PERCENT   OF   INCREASE   SINGE   I89O 

FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER   TRAFFIC 

and 

POPULATION 
Data  from  I.    C.    C.    Rettort 

/ 

/ 

• 

» 

ctr\ 

% 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

• 

/ 

\ 

1 

1 

■ 

\ 

• 

/ 

f 

/ 

• 

/ 

/ 

t 
f 

1 

ou 

/ 

^•^ 

/ 

* 

*V" 

/■ 

uu 

• 
1 

■• 

rt  f\ 

/ 

< 

- 

/ 

1 

1  n 

..-' 

' 

bl 

," 

^- 

?/ 

i 

/ 

/ 

/ 

r\/-fc 

^1 

/ 

/ 

r 

< 

/ 

• 

To/ 

• 

tjtr 

/ 

""•■* 

' 

^1 

/ 

«1 

1 

/ 

3 

t 

/•>r\ 

• 

/ 

^t 

/ 

a 

1 

^ 

1 

f/ 

^ 

^ 

• 

/ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

A  /-\ 

i 

> 

/ 

/ 

A 

x^ 

^ 

1 

i 

f 

t 

jsS 

^, 

! 

i 

t 

/ 

^ 

^ 

TT^ 

I 

^ 

i^ 

rtr\ 

— J 

/ 

• 

/ 

J 

A 

^ 

t 
1 

f- 

_^ 

\ 

>( 

f 

/ 

f  \ 

— 

\ 

• 

YE 

AR 

i^ 

0 

05 

w 

^ 

CO 

"*  x> 

0 

0 

N 

■* 

CO 

ao 

0 

CVJ 

06 

1-t 

03 

126 


RAILROAD    STATISTICS 

POPULATION    OF    THE   UNITED    STATES 

Data    from 

STATISTICAL    AJiSTRACT 

of    the 

DEPARTMENT    OF    COMMEKCE   U.S.A. 

w>- 

i 

/ 

« 

*W" 

/ 

on 

— f 

9 
1 

911 

1 

• 

/ 

rn 

< 
/ 

- 

1 

fro 

/ 

SR 

/ 

/ 

in 

/ 

z 

4 
/ 

r 

o 

•-t 

iK 

/ 

M 

f 

a 

-1 

»o- 

/ 

t-t 

* 
f 

M 
H 

M- 

> 

f 

< 

/ 

n 

J 

B 
Z 

r 

f 

M 

^ 

/ 

o 

d 

f 

Ed 

M- 

/ 

i 

-^ 

• 

Z 

^>- 

/ 

• 

• 

/ 

/ 

t«- 

/ 

..^ 

/'" 

in 

.** 

." 

YE 

XR 

^' 

^ 

5 

< 

\ 

( 
1 

( 

> 

< 

) 

< 

4 

< 

> 
1 

< 

i 

5 

1 

> 

C 

5 

< 

3 

c 

f 

) 

c 

• 

If 

* 

f 

L 

c 
1 

) 

4 

( 
1 

i 

4 

( 
1 

J 

Q 

f 

i 
1 

C 

f 

i( 

• 

d 

c 

• 

4 

G 

f 

; 

2 

< 

* 

> 

c 

* 

^ 

__ 

127 


RAILROAD 

STATISTICS 

POPULATION   OF   EASTERN    DISTIIICT 

of    tlie 

UNITED   STATES 

AS   CONSIDERED  BY   THE   I.C.C. 

y 

^r> 

/ 

/ 
» 

' 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

oo 

/ 

1 

1 

rfcr* 

, 

• 

/ 

i 

/ 

r 

AA. 

# 

/ 

Btr 

4 

« 

' 

o 

Q^ 

1 

/ 

^ 

/ 

a 

/ 

24 

i 

f 

CO 
H 

Ort 

t 

^ 

/ 

9 

/ 

» 

sr, 

20 

M 

* 

o 

lO 

« 

f 

ce 

/ 

s 

10 

> 

f 

^ 

/ 

14 

y 

•«  r\ 

, 

^ 

/ 

*  r\ 

/ 

10 

> 

f^ 

a 

> 

/ 

y 

a 

J 

/ 

YI 

AR 

_/ 

/ 

A 

y 

> 

< 

< 

> 

< 

> 

5 

< 

( 
t 

5 

< 

5 

5 

< 

> 
> 

< 
1 

) 

( 
( 

> 

< 

< 

> 
) 

< 

> 

r 

« 

i 

* 

f 

) 

4 

1, 
-J 

4 

> 

4 

I 
1 

J 

■t 

t 

} 

f 

i 

i 

1. 

J 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

< 

I 
< 

128 


^^^ 

OATiDn»r>  QTATTQTTna 

n 

POPULATION  OF  WESTERN  DISTRICT 

of  the 

UNITED  STATES 

AS  CONSIDERED  BY  THE  I.C.C. 

...,  i 

'^O 

i 

f 

/ 

Ofi 

/ 

< 
f 

r 

Ofi 

/ 

/ 

9^ 

i 

1 

/ 

* 

/ 

• 

/ 

i 

9         I 

03 

/ 

1 

M 

1  fi 

/ 

1-1 
M 

j 

r 

5t 

4^ 

* 

/ 

M 

/ 

1  A 

f 

< 

i 

• 

CQ 

/ 

* 

X 

y 

M 
-bb- 

in 

/ 

i 
i 

O 

' 

1 

1 

/ 

p 

Q 

/ 

' 

z 

1 

it 

4 

/ 

/ 

• 

>» 

,^ 

il 

__ 

•  ^^ 

m»  < 

— 

.' 

n 

[ 

YE 

AR 

— 

c 
c 

> 

T 

1 
( 

c 
c 

> 

< 

? 

^ 

< 

> 

r 

< 

k 

5 
5 

< 

> 

i 

5 

< 

c 

} 

< 
( 

> 
> 

5 

c 

5 

c 
1 

4 

3 

1 
1 

1   f 

i       1   c 

1   j   ' 

< 

5 

H 

c 

;  1  c 

4 

c 

1 

2 

1 

4 

( 

f 

4 

c 

5 

129 


RAILROAD 

STATISTirs 

^^ 

■"^ 

POPULATION   OF   SOUTHERN  DISTBICT 

of    the 

UNITED   STATES 

AS    CONSIDERED  BY    THE   I.C.C. 

Sw 

«^ 

nji 

■se 

• 

i 

— r 

/ 

• 

to 

■fi^ 

> 

—95 
O 

h-4 

«  <-» 

/ 

/ 

3 

■T© 

/ 

a 

/ 

■tW 

i 
/ 

CO 

/ 

r 

g 

-T^ 

/ 

11 

/ 

•< 

s 

TTC 

/ 

M 

> 

^•' 

^ 

o 

■+6 

,/ 

X 

i 

a 

,y 

.»* 

3 

y 

» 

ft 

.> 

• 

— 6 

y 

»• 

* 

.^ 

.'-^ 

f^' 

— B 

YE 

AR 

( 
e 

> 
•> 

T 

c 
e 

> 

c 

e 

> 

< 
1 

r 

< 

1 

5 
S 

< 
< 

> 

1* 

< 

> 

» 

< 

c 

< 
< 

> 

< 
< 

> 

( 
1 

f 

f 

4 

< 

1 

» 

4 

» 

; 

4 

( 

1 

u 
4 

(J 

) 

4 

a 

f 

> 

4 

1 

J.   .. 

t 

t 

i 

4 

t 

f 

4 

< 

9 

4 

t 

5 

130 


n  A  TT  xsi\  k  r\ 

CT*  f^T  CTTn  C 

TOTAL  PASSENGERS   CARRIED 
in 
UNITED    STATES 

Data  from  I.   C.   C.   Reports 

/ 

\\}\ 

TO- 

y 

/ 

wt 

>fj 

y 

•  ^ 

Cfi 

FT 

Kr 

/ 

o 

«^fl 

/ 

•J 

^t 

0 

/ 

— w 

a 

/ 

M 

o( 

>0 

/ 

w 

/ 

► 

u 
u 

Tt 

0 

/ 

f 

s 

rf/ 

. 

4 

A 

u 

/ 

• 

r 

y«a 

> 

o 

uC 

^ 

/ 

/ 

■ 

I 

/ 

^ 

i 

01 

0 

i 

f 

\ 

5b 

•  e 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

-at 

^— 

/ 

\ 

h— • 

s. 

/ 

'v 

•" 

of 

<?-■ 

A  ■ 

n 

Tl 

lAI 

41 

0 

< 

) 

< 

X 

* 

f 

< 

» 

( 

! 

( 

{ 

5 

( 

r 
-1 

< 

* 

c 

> 

■> 

< 

^ 

( 

J 

c 

\ 

C 

ff 

4 

c 

1 

> 

* 

C 

* 

( 

> 

4 

< 
1 

6 

4 

( 

< 

1 

1 
1 

» 

s 

c 

f 

( 
T 

> 

131 


RATT.nn&n  rtatthttph 

~ 

NUMBER  PASSENGERS  CARRIED 

IN  EASTERN  DIVISION 

of  tLe 

UNITED  STATES 

Data  from  I.  C.  C.  Reports 

[ 

' 

1 

t 
t 

or 

f   1 

/ 

1 

m  i*f\    n 

/ 

/ 

'V 

'« 

/ 

oJ»l 

/ 

^^ 

O^ 

tv 

1 

/ 

J 

/ 

oOu  1 

• 

J 1 

,J 

/ 

''"I 

y 

i 

9 

4! 

W 

/ 

1 

/ 

M 
Z 

4' 

vv 

y 

o 

M 

/ 

\ 

1 

/ 

• 

M 

4 

so 

^ 

\ 

/ 

a 

/ 

\ 

/ 

i-i 

~4i 

}0 

/ 

« 

1 

05 

«*fc 

c»/\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

> 

^. 

/ 

o 

on 

> 

^ 

/ 

/ 

S 

\ 

■— •' 

r' 

(X. 

o 

PS 

tU 

0 

cq 

3 

20 

T( 

in 

YI 

AR 

CI 

fU 

c 
i 

9 

1 

< 

• 

« 
< 

1 

c 

3 

< 

> 

3 

c 
c 

1 

• 
< 

J 

< 

> 

; 

c 

( 

1 

< 

1 

i 

J 

4 

J 

» 

L 

J 

* 
* 

J 

< 

\ 

f 

4 

< 

4 

< 

4 

< 
* 

> 

4 

< 

1 

i 

1 

132 


RAILROAD    &TATTKTICS 

~ 

NUMBER  PASSENGERS   CARRIED 

IN   WESTERN   DIVISION 

of    the 

UNITED   STATES 

Date  from  I.    C-    0.    Reports 

— 1 

rt 

r»#\ 

1 

/ 

» 

f 

o 

Rn 

i 

2 

4 

/ 

O 

M 

2 

RO 

• 

1 

a 

n 

in 

/ 

M 

( 

U3 

"^n 

/ 

/^ 

• 

C/3 

-TA- 

■^ 

in 

/ 

«5! 

/ 

b. 

)o 

i 

/ 

g 

/ 

.JLi 

40 

/' 

?; 

/ 

_1^ 

bA 

/ 

''•^ 

/ 

f 

* 

/ 

\ 

« 

> 

,y 

s^ 

y 

• 

_«i 

ie- 

• 

^ 

/ 

14 

ko 

YI 

AR 

1 

c 

> 
1 

C 

I 

< 

!• 

! 

( 
< 

;; 

( 
( 

5 
D 

( 

( 

5 
? 

( 

3 

? 

{ 

1 

3 

— u 

1 

• 

u 
* 

4 

c 

f 

i 

4 

c 

3 

( 
1 

( 

f 

J 
< 

c 

1 

J 
^ 

( 
1 

3 

4 

< 
1 

__ 

133 


RATInOAn  QTiTTSTTPQ 

NUMBER  PASSENGERS  CARRIED 

IN  SOUTHERN  DIVISION 

of  the 

UNITED  STATES 

Data  from  I.  C.  C.  Reports 

1 

/ 

« 

flO 

/ 

• 
< 

> 

'.^ 

/ 

7ri 

/ 

* 

70 

1 

1 

1 

flR. 

1 

sr, 

1 

o 

M 

/ 

/ 

1 
1 

a 

/ 

/  i 

1 

M 

r   i 

c: 

KO 

z^' 

/ 

t 
/ 

1 

■Af: 

y 

' 

45 

/ 

* 

^ 

i 

_et 

40 

r  " 

/ 

/ 

1 

1 

S 

7 

30 

_^ 

•"-. 

<•* 

/ 

"•> 

f  \ 

* 

30 

""■H 

f 

1 

' 

29 

f^n 

YEj 

IR 

1 

[ 

( 

J 

3 

c 
c 

1 
> 

> 

< 
< 

3 

c 

t 

c 
c 

> 

c 

> 

T 

3 

\      i 

9 

5 

( 

1 

1      \ 

1 

1 

* 

< 

c 

1 

4 

1 

r~ 

f 

4 

— « 

s 

4 

c 

f 

4 

H 

5 

1 

H   ■ 

"   < 

^ 

< 

1 

B 

1 

_ 

134 


DATI.nnAn     STiTTSTinS 

TONS   OF   FREIGHT   CARRIED 

in  the 

UNITED   STATES 

Data  from  I.    0.   0.    Reports 

nn 

ly 

1 
/ 

• 

y 

• 

i 

■ 

N 

r 

/ 

\ 

/ 

-« « 

/ 

\ 

1 

i 

\ 

1  f, 

1 

• 

I 

1 

-*  f 

r\  r\ 

1 

V] 

TO 

J 

IM 

■t  J 

j 

_] 

' 

3 

1  ■J 

/ 

hH 

l^ 

/ 

Z 

t  o 

/ 

t- 

/ 

i 

6 
is 

1  1 

/ 

^"^ 

/ 

in 

r\r\ 

i 

' 

* 

/ 

a 

/ 

> 

J 

/ 

f] 

4 

^. 

/ 

y 

\ 

/ 

X 

y' 

\ 

/ 

/ 

» 

f 

\ 

/-^ 

(. 

/ 

V 

YE 

\R 

R 

C\{\ 

s 

w 

•^ 

Q 

00 

o 

o 

« 

^ 

CO 

00 

o 

Oi 

00 

r-i 

__ 

135 


RAILROAn  STATTSTTnS 

TONS  OF  FREIGHT  CARRIED 

IN  EASTERN  DIVISION 
of  the 
UNITED  STATES 

Data  from  I.  C.  C.  Reports 

. 

I 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

1 

fk  , 

/ 

\ 

/ 

• 

, 

• 

/ 

/ 

■ 
1 

/ 

/ 

\ 

1 
/ 

/ 

1 

•  , 

1 

u 

• 

V 

/ 

• 

/ 

n 

/ 

• 

/ 

—  .. 

• 

Vi 

• 

o 

/ 

1-1 

Tl) 

U 

i 

*> 

f 

3 

• 

/ 

• 
• 

/ 

■T3" 
H 

■OG 

0— 

• 

/ 

O 

J 

1 

/ 

2 

/ 

• 

[ 

1 

^ 

/ 

B 

85 

u 

/ 

1 

\ 

/ 

• 

\ 

f 

/ 

• 

\ 

/ 

^•v 

/ 

• 

• 

40 

0 

Y 

ik\ 

c 
c 

> 

( 

1 

i 

^ 
< 

c 

) 

( 
C 

> 

< 

( 

> 

( 
( 

J 

) 

< 

> 

< 

> 

< 

1 

> 

0 
f 

1 

1 

i 

1 
H 

4 

1 

■* 

1 

H 

^ 

' 

H 

1 

H 

1 

4 

136 


RAILROAD    STATISTICS 

TONS   OF  FREIGHT   CARRIED 

IN    WESTERN   DIVISION 

of    the 

UNITED    STATES 

Data  from  I.    C.    C.    Reports 

y 

/ 

1 

/ 

rr  fT 

/ 
/' 

\ 

/ 

OO" 

/ 

1 

\ 

/ 

filT^ 

/ 

/' 

/ 

/ 

f 

4au 

i 

.^ 

/ 

CO 

A.  _ 

r 
/ 

4lJu 

/ 

I-} 

/ 

5i 

Ouu 

1 

1 

./ 

ml 

/ 

o 

i 

1 

.> 

/ 

Tti 

/ 

\ 

o 

no 

u 

/ 

\ 

^ 

/ 

K 
Ed 

/ 

^N 

f 

\ 

^• 

y 

20 

o 

/ 

X 

lU 

u 

in 

rt 

YE 

AR 

< 

> 

( 

5 

5 
c 

1 

5 

« 

< 

i 
5 

> 

( 
< 

5 

< 
< 

4 

C 

r 

< 

> 

< 

1 

? 

< 

9 

u 

c 

1 

4 

i 

"« 

J 

> 
4 

<4 

c 

) 

1 

< 

1 

( 

1 

1 

H 

< 

i 
1 

5 

N 

137 


RATI.ROAn 

=;TATTSTTnS 

TONS   OF   FREIGHT   CARRIED 

IN    SWTHERN    DIVISION 

of    the 

UNITED   STATES 

Data   from   I.    C.    C.    Re 

ports 

1 

1 

/ 

ijii  J 

f 

• 

J 

/ 

1 
1 

/ 

• 

loy    1 

/ 

\ 

/ 

. 

/ 

"> 

( 

17  J    1 

1 
/ 

D 

a 

/ 

'Ji 

«  * 

rk 

/ 

f* 

o 

-r& 

7-' 

^ 

/ 

a 

-t4 

5— 

/ 

X 

/ 

1 

as 

1 

* 

• 

o 

1 

• 

i 

O 

-tS 

pr^ 

/ 

\ 

! 

e 

/ 

f 

-«- 

u— 

r 

i 

/ 

-tO 

9— 

/ 

/ 

— ^ 

9~- 

/ 

.^ 

A 

• 

\ 

/ 

— © 

9— 

/ 

> 

■> 

/ 

— 1 

B- 

— T 

^ 

Y 

EA] 

I 

^^ 

B— 

1 

( 

3 

i 

i 

1 

i 

( 

i 
< 

Q 
c 

) 

c 

c 

\ 

4 

i 

< 

» 

c 

( 

< 

> 

4 

( 

1 

D 

c 

» 

5 

b 

4 

{ 

f 

) 

4 

c 

t 

4 

c 

> 
* 

< 

f 

A 

< 
1 

> 

4 

< 

> 

• 

* 

( 

1 

4 

138 


RAILROAD 

:5TATISTICS 

NUMBER  PASSENGERS 

CARRIED  ONE  MILE 

in  the 

UNITED  STATES 

Data  from  I.  0.  0.  Reports 

■ 

Tfl 

1  i 

> 

/ 

/ 

T^ 

/ 

/ 

TO 

J 

— 1 

/ 

• 

OA 

/ 

r 

o 

/ 

i 

t 

M 

ca 

/ 

'^i 

/ 

r 

C/3 

/ 

2 

CIO 

/ 

35 

/ 

r 

nn 

> 

/ 

CIi 

/ 

o 

i 

/ 

m 

1 W 

/ 

P 

/ 

J 

/ 

/ 

^^ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

■w 

/ 

^ 

N 

y 

S 

/ 

1  ** 

r- 

TE 

AR 

lU 

< 

> 

I 

c 

\ 

< 

t 

( 

5 

< 

3 

< 

\ 

< 

} 

> 

< 

H 

3 

4 

5 

> 

c 

5 

> 

i 

r 

r 

1 

< 

1 

t 

1 

f 

A 

f 

i 

M 

« 

i 

* 

f 

B 

< 

f 

T 

* 

f 

4 

V 

I  ' 

4 

f 

c 

1 

c 

f 

i 

139 


^*" 

RAILROAD   STATISTICS 

' 

AVERAGE  JOURNEY  PER  PASSENGER 

in   the 

UNITED   STATES 

Data  from  I.   C.   C.   Reports 

1J. 

/ 

X 

Wk 

/ 

^"^" 

- 

V. 

/ 

\9r 

/ 

\ 

^ 

1 

/ 

• 

11 

A 

r 

X 

/ 

W 

a 

)0 

S5 

[•n 

( 

2 

OS 

/ 

^ 

r^n 

/ 

"^ 

r 

u 

/ 

< 

39- 

i 

f 

> 

/ 

Til 

nA' 

\ 

/ 

o 

J 

\ 

A 

*X 

f 

H 

'15 

"^F. 

1 

\ 

/ 

, — 

\ 

, 

' 

1 

f 

1-4 

E^4- 

s 

^ 

=34^ 

rE. 

iR. 

c 
t 

1 
1 

C 

1 

5 

t 

c 

^ 

> 

c 

i 

1 

< 

i 

i 

J 

) 

% 
( 

? 

a 
^ 

Q 

D 

< 

) 

( 

4 

) 

a 

1 

Q 

\ 

c 

I 

c 

) 

c 

5 

< 

i 

c 

5 

C 

b — 

c 

> 

C 

> 

C 

i 

< 

> 

^^ 

„ 

140 


RAILHOAE 

STATISTICS 

TONS   OF   FREIGHT   CARRIED   ONE  MILE 
In    the 

UNITED   STATES 

Data  from  I.    C.    C.    Reports 

e\j 

Ofi 

tn 

V 

rfci 

:n 

i 

— 

/^ 

/ 

O  J 

<n 

/ 

V 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

w 

j 

f 

> 

■* 

o 

lU 

/ 

rfc/ 

lA 

/ 

a 

yi 

' 

M 

-  < 

ttf^ 

i 

r 

Ti 

• 

/ 

H 

1  4 

n 

/ 

f 

o 

^ 

r 

ffi 

/ 

38 

f- 

JU 

J 

V 

as 

> 

/ 

15 

If) 

/ 

■•  / 

ir\ 

y 

V 

/ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

^ 

/ 

{ 

o 

X' 

i-» 

Y 

EAi 

i. 

rO 

< 

) 

3 

c 

\ 
> 

^ 

• 
) 

<; 

> 

c 
< 

> 

( 
c 

I 

c 
c 

5 

r 

5 

c 

> 

< 

< 
1 

5 

4 

: 

c 
1 

> 

f 

4 

t 

) 

t 

f 

! 

4 

1 

i 

c 

t 

1 

4 

341 


^^ 

■^"" 

BAH.nOAD    STATISTICS 

^ 

TONS   OF   FREIGHT   CARRIED 

in   the 

UNITED    STATES 

TONNAGE   FROM   OTHER  LINES   EXCLUDED 

Data  rrom  I.    C.    C.    Reports 

1 — 

1 1 1 

kA 

1  n 

in 

J 

\ 

/ 

1/k 

)A 

1 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

• 

0 

kO 

/ 

\ 

/ 

o 

M 

/ 

\ 

/ 

^ 

'v 

^^ 

\ 

f 

a 

'' 

n 

fcA 

00 

as 

w 

S 

fi, 

)n 

/ 

Em 

O 

/ 

ec 

m 

/ 

n 

/ 

""^ 

^ 

^ 

)n 

/ 

f 

t  i^ 

^ 

irt 

i 

^ 

/ 

LA 

/ 

f 

K 

"^il 

YF 

AB 

i 

> 

1 
1 

1 

I 

• 

< 

1 

e 

» 

1 
t 

> 

( 

t 

I 

< 
( 

!• 

1 

( 

s 

< 

t 

> 

c 

1 

i 

( 

J 

) 

4 

> 

1 

1 

> 

4 

( 

3 

< 

1 

s 

< 

1 

4 

( 

ft 

< 

* 

> 

i 

< 

a 

142 


AVERAGE   HAUL   PER   TON    OF   FREIGHT 
TYPICAL    HAUL 
of    the 
AVERAGE    RAILWAY 

Data   rrom   I.    C.    C.    Reports 

«  ^ 

a 

1  A 

^ 

^^ 

\ 

i 

^ 

I 

/ 

"     1 

j 

\ 

/ 

. 

1 

\ 

/ 

l^lu  1 

1 

1 

lU 

1 

1 

lU 

U 

\ 

,     ^ 

1?J 

4 

\ 

/ 

^ 

i 

^ 

I 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

s 

/ 

33 
2 

, 

/ 

\ 

M 

V 

i 

[/ 

> 

< 

/ 

Iz 

/ 

u 
o 

,^ 

/ 

c: 

Ed 

~TZ 

Ct 

j 

\ 

J 

r 

•^ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

IE 

4 

/ 

^ 

f 

1  r 

ft 

/ 

1 

If 

n 

"^ 

] 

! 

1 1 

Q 

11 

EAR 

• 

< 

< 

( 

f 

> 

( 
( 

3 

< 
( 

5 

( 

1 

< 

1" 
1 

f 

( 
( 

1 

( 

-1 

( 

1 

L 

< 

1 

p 

( 
f 

3 

4 

c 

•4 

( 

1 

i 

( 
f 

6 

( 
1 

•4 

< 

'I 

< 

f 

> 

< 

» 

4 

( 

15 

•4 

( 

3 
H 

143 


RAILROAD 

STATISTICS 

AVERAGE  HAUL   PER   TON    OF   FREIGHT 
TYPICAL   BAUL 

ALL   RAILWAYS    REGARDED   AS   A   SYSTEM 
Data  from   I.    C.    C.    Reports 

n» 

J 

Tl 

/ 

J%V 

J 

/ 

rau   1 

f 

. 

V 

sa,| 

\ 

. 

> 

2a  ^  1 

\ 

J 

-1 

Jri 
7- 

tf-t    M 

J 

1 

M 

CT  « 

j 

1 

-T&}- 

s 

1 

' 

= 

1 

> 

o 
< 

n  A  ^ 

I 

/ 

E4 

^ 

I 

1 

i 

/^ 

\ 

•< 

\ 

\ 

/ 

o 

84 

2 

\ 

\ 

/ 

r 

H 

n  J 

ri 

\ 

1 

I 

/ 

5 
as 

' 

/ 

1^ 

1 

2a 

8 

cJ: 

1) 

Y 

BAl 

I. 

-St 

4 

( 

> 
a 

c 
e 

I 

; 

« 

1 

( 
1 

0 

I-i 

< 
r 

5 

C 

1 

• 

r 

« 

I 

c 

3 

( 

) 

( 

i 

c 

« 

) 
t 

c 

• 

1 

c 

> 

4 

( 

« 

5 

( 

0 

c 
• 

> 

c 

a 
1 

\l 

s 
■t 

c 

> 

c 

1 
1 

( 

) 

< 

3 

144 


^*' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  062005530 


